Tas ee 


ahs 


prt) 


Save ceg ten + ster 
; Sasol sas 


fe: 


HS 


nes 5 
iss rele ‘ : a 
Z : Ss 
ms G Pras 
ott 


s 


e's 4 
Me NSS 


*y 


rhs . 
SIA " 
5 : 
iss askt ; = ae a 
aos. ioe - a - : 
Be ate a Pan B we: Set Nee 
acute 
j 


are 


at 
‘sauce ee , 


a 
Lae oid 
Shea: 


era 

2. 
say ire Shes tesa ats, 
ues Son RN 


eat 





ddefen ha 


<< 
eT <a 
TE meadll 





ne eR Ta ag 
/ ? LS 3 
‘ o.j¢ (oe 


ot the Ghealogicgy Sen 


sy "ity 


PRINCETON, N. J. 


Presented by 1% \ Ce, S \ Ler a \ ANON . 


ilk Wie, ae 
Dime eA JOO oD 
Adams, Nehemiah, 1806-1878. 
Evenings with the doctrines 











EVENINGS 


WITH 


THE DOCTRINES. 


BY 


NEHEMIAH ADAMS, D.D. 


- AUTHOR OF “FRIENDS OF CHRIST,’ “CHRIST A FRIEND,’ ‘“ COMMUNION 
SABBATH,’’ ETC., ETC. 


eos beOeINa: 
GeOwWiats Derg NeD. i) doN) O°O TN’, 


59 WASHINGTON STREET. 
NEW YORK: SHELDON AND GOMPANY. 
CINCINNATI : GEORGE S. BLANCHARD. 
1866. 


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by 
GOULD AND LINCOLN, 
in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 


INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 


HESE pages contain the substance of familiar lec- 


tures delivered in the Lecture Room of the Essex 
Street Church, Boston, on successive Tuesday evenings 


in the winter of 1858-9. 


The title, “* EVENINGS WITH THE DocrRINEs,” agrees, 
therefore, with tHe origin of this work, and is intended, 
also, to express the familiar mode of treating these subjects 
which was aimed at in their delivery, and is sought to be 


preserved in their present form. 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2021 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/eveningswithdoct0O0adam_0O 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 
GOD, e e e ° ° ° ° e e e ° e ° ° 11 


DIVINE REVELATION, . A UN Sere Ae oe Eee 
PEeURINIEY OR ae tee co see ee Piet) sansa Un tAk BE 
DEITY OF CHRIST, Se eee oh ti Wars e 3 atts Wal etr? TE 
DEITY OF sizes aimee ora eee es sce iets Teel WE<, 0G 


Wag 
DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, ute tiewikel. s elihien set Loo 


VII. 
MAN, e e s e e e e e e e es e e ° 141 


MAN —ConrinuED, . F ° : ‘: ‘ aya ehcce . 163 


. Vi CONTENTS. 


IX. 


ATONEMENT, .« «© © “e «© (0 fo | 4 6: meee Gee 
ATONEMENT —ConrinveED, . aye ak ae ee atk ° « 19% 
ATONEMENT —ConrTINUED,. «© «© « © o- © oo «mab 
ELECTION, 2 6 “ese Fie) (Se) Ae = son so Se 
REGENERATION, 3. 0%. <6, “esau <0 o - 0\ oy sueeeeeeee 
PERSEVERANCE, «a: c6) We" 0) js: 9 ss sao 
CHRISTIAN PERFECTION,. . . e« .« | Se eS 
THE INTERMEDIATE STATE, %* « « .« « « .») \m Goo 


XVII 
LLL LON ees” Mao ing AW Se! | dod alte? ewe ce ee - 3889 


GOD. 





EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 





I. 
GOD. 


OW do we know that there is one Supreme Being, 
the Author of all things ? 

We sometimes hear it said that the Bible does not 
undertake to prove that there is a Gop, but always as- 
sumes it. ‘The Bible does indeed take it for granted that 
there is a God, but the proofs of it are also given. The 
Bible reasons with us on this subject. Nor is it superfluous, 
when so large a portion of the race for so long a time 
have been, and are now, idolaters, and when among those 
who profess to worship God so many virtually deny Him 
by that philosophical and sentimental Pantheism which 
says that every thing is God. It is needful, then, to prove 
that there is a personal God, that He is One, and that 
He is the only living and true God. Some, in reasoning 
upon this subject, regard the argument from design with 
less favor than other methods of proof. But the Bible 


12 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


relies upon it as the chief source of evidence. The argu- 
ment from design in creation is regarded as so conclusive 
with respect to the existence of God, that the reason 
assigned for “the wrath of God against all ungodliness of 
men,” is, “* Because that which may be known of God is 
manifest in them; for God hath showed rt unto them.” 
Then follows an explicit declaration that the “ eternal 
power and Godhead,” or ‘the invisible things of” God, 
‘are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are 
made,” and therefore that idolatry, atheism, irreligion 
are ‘¢ without excuse.” 

We sometimes read, in books of moral philosophy, 
that there is something independent of God which is 
called the nature of things; and that is represented as 
the foundation of virtue. For example, it is said that 
things are right and wrong in themselves, not merely 
because God has so ordained, and that these things would 
be right and wrong if there were no God. Hence, the 
impression is made that there is a constitution of nature 
to which God was obliged to conform himself, some 
eternal laws which were in existence and in operation 
contemporaneously with God, not created by Him, but 
having an existence of necessity ; so that they would have 
existed even if there were no God. Here we have the 
foundation of Atheism, Pantheism, and of all those theo- 
ries and dreamy notions whose object is to remove the 
idea of a personal God, or, by exciting a belief in some- 
thing which is eternal besides God, to abate the power 
which the thought of God naturally has upon the mind. 


GOD. 13 


But what is the nature of things, when things them- 
selves‘-do not exist? If God existed before all things, 
of course there were no laws antecedent to Him. Laws 
are the rules and orders by which things act. It is delu- 
sive, therefore, to think of any thing as existing inde- 
pendently of the Great First Cause. He existing from 
eternity, these laws and this nature of things exist contem- 
poraneously with Him, but not independently of Him. 
Now we can make impossible hypotheses, but they are 
absurd, and then ask questions in view of them which 
are useless; as, for example: Suppose that God should 
cease to be; would not right and wrong be the same as 
now? Right and wrong have gained an existence be- 
cause there is a God; they are eternal with Him; but 
they were not before Him ; He necessitated them, not they 
Him, nor any of his attributes nor ways. 

That there is an Eternal First Cause of all things may 
be argued from this, —that something must always have 
existed, else nothing could ever have been brought into 
being. Every reader will feel that the word something, 
in such connection, is not so reverent an expression as 
the case requires, but a more appropriate and less general 
term could not be used without seeming to beg the ques- 
tion. - 

We should deem it trifling, or else an amusing fiction, 
if some one should relate that wood, iron, nails, screws, 
lime, bricks, and paints of different colors, came together 
and arranged themselves in due order, and made a house. 


If one should cast a font of types into the air, or shake 
2 


14 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


them together and throw them down, and a proper num- 
ber of them should be found to have arranged themselves 
so as to compose the Declaration of American Independ- 
ence, another set the Ten Commandments, another the 
Lord’s Prayer, it would be far less than we must sup- 
pose to have happened if there were no Great First Cause 
of all things. 

We are familiar with the story of the globe suspended 
from a wall, and with the answer of the friend, when an 
Atheist asked him how or why it was there? ‘That it 
should always have been there, or that it should have 
come there of itself, is no more than the Atheist required 
his friend to believe respecting our globe. 

Matter is not eternal, for it is changeable. Change 
implies that a thing is not of necessity just as it 1s, 
and therefore it is not eternal. 

It only removes the difficulty further back, but does 
not solve it, to account for the existence of all things 
on the supposition of an eternal series, one thing 


being derived from the preceding, and so on. Let a 


g 
chain be immeasurably long, there must, nevertheless, 
somewhere be a staple from which it depends. An 
endless perpendicular chain is an impossibility4* for if 
there be of necessity a support to one link, all the links 
require it, and so the first. 

Some have insisted on the eternity of men, and of 
each animal and insect tribe. But the records of the 
human race in the earth in the form of fossil remains 


extend back only about six thousand years. Animals 


GOD. 15 


are found deeper in the geological formations than men. 
Hieroglyphical writings have been discovered which were 
believed to be of greater antiquity ; but Champollion and 
Belzoni have translated them in consistency with the other 
records of the race. 

In this and in other ways we arrive at the conclusion, 
independently of revelation, that there was one Eternal 
First Cause of all things. 

That this First Cause of all things is an Intelligent 
Being, is proved by our own existence. The fountain 
cannot be lower than the stream. One line in the 
celebrated ‘* Hymn to Deity,” by Derzhavin, contains 


the whole of the argument on this point: 


“T am, O God! and surely Thou must be!” 


Conscience in man is proof of an Intelligent First 
Cause. Conscience implies a power higher than we ; for 
it is always handing us over to a higher judicature. 

If there be tribes of men who have no idea of Supreme 
Deity, they are confessedly exceptions to the general 
rule. Indeed, such is the conviction of the race at large 
that there is Supreme Deity, that the effort is to multiply 
objects of worship; and men worship “ an unknown 
God” under the craving need which the mind feels of 
Deity as an object of worship. Even when men make 
gods after their own evil desires, they show that their 
nature requires them to believe in a Supreme Power. 
This belief in Supreme Deity is consistent with an utter 


practical disbelief of the true God —as the Bible says — 


16 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


— ‘when they knew God, they glorified him not as 
God.”’ 

Though, with the Bible in our hands, we are not left to 
the light of reason and of nature, merely, on this subject, 
still, as we have already seen, even the Bible refers us to 
these sources. This is a reproof to that transcendental 
pride which seems to disdain this kind of evidence and 
becomes exceedingly philosophical in its proofs. An 
argument is intended when it is said, ‘* Every house is 
builded by some man,’?—meaning, evidently, ‘“* We 
infer a designing mind when we see a house; therefore a 
designing mind must have built all things; that Mind is 
Gov.” We know, therefore, that God is an Intelligent 
Mind, because He has made minds. 

It is an illustration of the truth that there are limits 
to human reason, that the argument by which we prove 
that there is a God, the First Cause of all things, logically 
proves that He himself had a First Cause. For we say 
that marks of design prove a designer, that our own 
minds make it necessary to believe that there is a 
Supreme, Creating Mind. Why, then, does not the 
existence of God prove the same with regard to him ? 
Reason must here confess that she is baffled, and is obliged 
to turn and seek proofs, in another direction, that there 
is but One First Cause of all beings and things. 

But if there be an Eternal First Cause, how does it 
appear that there is only one? If one necessarily 
existed from all eternity, why may there not be two or 
more Eternal Beings ? 


GOD. 17 


Unity of design in creation makes it probable before- 
hand that there is but one God. Creation bears no 
marks of two Creators. 

Gop (who to be God must be a God of truth, as might 
easily be shown) declares, ‘“* [am Grod, and there is none 
else.” ‘* Before me there was no God formed, neither 
shall there be any after me.” ‘Is there any God besides 
me? I know not any.” 

There is a species of Pantheism at the present day, 
though it is not new. We find it in some of our popular 
literature. Panthetsm is from two Greek words, all, 
and God—i. e., all things are God. He is, some say, 
universally diffused —every thing is a part of Him. 
There is no such thing as sin ; but men, who are atoms of 
Deity, are in some way jostled out of due harmony in 
their souls, and this makes what we call sin ;— but it is 
merely perturbation, as in a planet; variation, as in a 
magnetic needle. All things will come right at last, for 
we are each like a drop of quicksilver, and there is one 
greater concentrated globule, which we call Deity, into 
which at last we shall all return. ‘Thus we and all things 
are G¢od— emanations, effluxes, of some Infinite Necessity, 
to be absorbed into the great Mind of the Universe. Such 
is the theory of men distinguished for literary attainments, 
as we gather it from their prose and poetry. It is essen- 
tially the Hindoo philosophy, Brahminism. The more 
that the idea of God as a personal Being can be reduced, 
the less is the feeling of accountableness. ‘The “ carnal 

2% 


18 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


mind’? in man “is enmity against God” everywhere, 
under varied manifestations. | 

The doctrine of man’s perfect individuality and account- 
ableness, in opposition to this pantheistic idea of aggre- 
gation, even in connection with the Supreme Being, and 
our capacity for perpetual increase in likeness to God 
while forever maintaining a separate consciousness, are far 
more worthy of man as an intelligent being. These set 
before man a career of boundless improvement in all the 
powers and faculties of his nature forever reaching after 
perfect likeness to the Infinite One. Pantheists generally 
think themselves highly intellectual and philosophical ; but 
it is in connection with this very subject of the divine 
existence that the inspired Apostle says of some, ‘ Pro- 
fessing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” In 
confusing the doctrine of a personal God, they inflict 
injury on that correlative truth which is one of the foun- 
dations and encouragements of all progress, the individ- 
uality of man. 

The simple idea of an eternal, underived Being is fear- 
ful beyond expression. There is no cause of his exist- 
ence out of himself; for then there would have been 
something antecedent to him. Then, Who caused that 
Cause ? and so the question would proceed without end. 
Did God cause his own existence? There is contradic- 
tion and absurdity in any such question which our minds 
feel impelled to ask. Our thoughts are bewildered. We 


find that we have come to the boundaries of knowledge. 


GOD. 19 


Those solitudes of eternity in which God dwelt alone, 
that existence of his which never began, and always was, 
confound us, and we feel our weakness. There is some- 
thing beyond our comprehension; we are subordinate ; 
our questions receive no answer; we are not supreme; 
there is a Will independent of ours. There is an aching 
desire within us to know and understand this dread 
mystery of eternal being, but we are compelled to submit, 
and to confess that we are baffled, and that on the most 
sublime of all questions and themes we know nothing. 

But it is most grateful to our feelings that we are not 
spurned, and that our ignorance and our littleness are 
not made the occasion of contempt. On the contrary, in 
the conclusion of the Book of Job, as in other places, we 
are called upon by the Most High to contemplate this infe- 
riority of ours, — for the purpose of humbling us, indeed, 
but,—in order that we may, in the best sense, know and 
enjoy God, and receive his love. God answers us out of 
the whirlwind, and among his first words are these: 
“Gird up now thy loins like a man ;’’—intimating that 
our ignorance and inferiority must not be allowed to dis- 
courage us, and that the proper contemplation of our igno- 
rance, and of God’s incomprehensibleness, is the beginning 
of wisdom. Questions are then put to us by the Most 
High, confirming our sense of ignorance and inferiority. 
‘‘ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the 
earth ?”? Our humility is still further increased, when the 
Most High, instead of questioning us on the subject of his 
eternity, tells us to explain the simplest things relating to 


20 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


the rain and ice, the ostrich and the peacock, and to con- 
template the mysteries of leviathan and behemoth, and 
to wonder at the eagle and the war-horse. 

In this connection, we have an instance of beautiful 
simplicity_and grandeur in the way of illustration, in the 
following passages: ‘¢ Behold, God is great, and we know 
him not, neither can the number of his years be searched 
out. For he maketh small the drops of water; they pour’ 
down rain according to the vapor thereof.”’ Inspiration 
alone would venture to be so simple. 

The word JrHovaH is in itself a wonderfully sig- 
nificant word. Many curious and deeply interesting 
things are said with regard to it, which cannot here be 
repeated. Its central idea is, to be. The prefix and suffix, 
some say, are, respectively, past and future, so that the * 
word would signify, J am, I was, I shall be. This, 
whether fanciful or not, corresponds with the ascription to 
the Almighty in Revelation, ‘* Who wast, and art, and art 
to come,” and to the paraphrase of the dread name in the 
opening of the book: “‘ Grace be unto you, and peace, 
from him which is, and which was, and which is to 
come.” Moreover, the Greek expression for Jehovah is 
the present participle of the verb to be, with the definite 
article ;— literally, the beng. The noun, Jehovah, forms 
no verb. It does not admit an article, nor take an affix. 
‘Tt is not placed in a state of construction with other 
words, but other words may be in construction with it.” 

It is interesting to know that God did not reveal him- 


self at first by that name which signifies self-existence. 


GOD. oa 


This He himself tells us: “‘And God spake unto Moses, 
and said unto him, I am the Lord; and I appeared unto 
Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of 
God Almighty; but by my name JEHovau was I not 
known unto them.” That name was disclosed in connec- 
tion with Israel’s deliverance out of bondage. Great use 
was made, in the earlier ages, of a name, it being taken as 
symbolical of something, or as a memorial, or as suggesting 
something which it was desirable should be kept before 
the mind. It would be difficult to describe, or to imagine, 
the different associations in the minds of the. early wor- 
shippers of God, in the use, successively, of these two 
names of the Most High; but we know that there must 
have been progress in the knowledge of God in the minds 
of men by means of the new name, and therefore that 
the Most High regards the attribute of self-existence as 
specially suited to advance our conceptions of his great- 
ness. . 

Almost every other attribute can be carved in symbol, 
and so can be an object of idolatry. Self-existence cannot be. 
represented by asymbol. Eternity is a circle, omniscience 
an eye, power an arm; but the name JEHOVAH suggests 
an idea of which there is no similitude. The Assembly of 
Divines who made the Westminster Catechism were at a 
loss for an answer to the simple question, What is God ? 
In much perplexity, it was proposed to unite in prayer. 
One of the younger members of the Assembly prayed, be- 
ginning his prayer with these words: ‘*O God, thou art 


a Spirit, infinite, eternal, unchangeable, in being, wisdom, 


22 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.” When 
they rose from their knees, these words were recalled, 
written down, and adopted, as their answer to the question, 
What is God? It will be useful to think of this in all 
our difficulties on the subject of religion. Luther has told 
us, by his familiar Latin inscription in his study, that “ To 
have prayed well is to have studied well.” 

In a sceptical frame of mind, to which we are all, at 
times, more or less tempted, and, possibly, are led almost 
to doubt the being of God, nothing better serves the pur- 
pose of faith than to open the Bible, anywhere, and to see . 
the name of God in connection with some asserted act or 
event, —it may be apparently a casual thing, or a mere 
connective phrase. ‘* The Lord spake unto Moses,” per- 
haps are the words which meet the eye; or we hear a 
man cry out, “ O God, thou art my God,” or, “ Praise 
the Lord ;” or the simple name of God, catching the eye, 
seems to fix the wavering thought and give it assurance. 
An unbeliever may scorn this, as not sufficiently honor- 
ing the human understanding. On going home from his 
debating club, however, where he has spent an evening 
in ridiculing religion as beneath the notice of an intellect- 
zal man, his child will climb his knee and ask him why 
he does not pray with her, like her mother? and by 
means of that simple question he will, perhaps, become 
a believer in Christianity and its determined advocate, 
to be ridiculed in his turn by those who think that our 
reason can be reached only by what they call * logic.” 


But logic is not dependent on slow and measured pro- 


GOD. 23 


cesses of argumentation. Coleridge says truly, ‘“ The 
feeling is oftentimes the deeper reason.” 

In our desire to know with certainty that there is such 
a Supreme Being, it is a relief to open the Bible, and 
to meet with such words as these: ‘* Thus saith the 
High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity.” ‘ Before 
the day was, I am he.” ‘“ Before the mountains were 
brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth or the 
world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” 
‘¢ Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only 
wise God.” ‘ Who is the blessed and only Potentate, 
the King of kings and Lord of lords; who only hath 
immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can 
approach unto ; whom no man hath seen nor can see.”’ 

Religion evidently begins with mysteries. Of course, 
then, we must not be surprised if we meet with mysteries 
in every thing connected with our discoveries of God. As 
there are unfathomable mysteries about his being, there 
may be such with regard to the mode of his existence, his 
government, his methods of dealing with men. 

If we can keep our minds calm on the subject of the 
Eternity of God, if reason does not totter on her seat 
at the contemplation of underived existence, it will be 
strange if any other mystery relating to God should dis- 
turb us. He who can bring his reason to bow reverently 
at the idea of a Being who had no beginning, is well pre- 
pared to receive any communication of his will. 

The Incomprehensibleness of God is the foundation of 
perpetual progress in knowledge. It would be a calamity 


24 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


if God could ever be comprehended. If man or angel 
could ever say that he had sailed round the ocean of the 
_ divine existence and found no remaining inaccessible sea 
nor undiscovered pole, that he had recorded all its lati- 
tudes and sounded all its depths, it would be dismal and 
portentous tidings. The unknown is the incentive to 
thought and progress ; the eternal incomprehensibleness of 
God lays the foundation for the perpetual advancement 
of his intelligent creatures in greatness and bliss. 

Our future being is commensurate with the Divine ex- 
istence. It is as far to look forward to the end of our 
existence as it is to the beginning of his. We shrink into 
nothing when we think of one who never began to 
be. So an animal, who could reason, might feel in medi- 
tating upon the future endless existence of man. When 
God says, ‘“‘ Of my years there is no end,” the soul, with 
reverence and awe toward its Creator, may add, Of my 
years there is no end. 

There is no cause to wonder that God should love 
man, nor is any thing disproportionate which God can do 
for him. It is reasonable, too, that God should love 
man as He does love him without partiality for one 
above another. We look upon twenty or thirty men 
standing on the road hammering down the paving stones ; 
the eye perhaps discerns but little difference in the members 
of the group, and they pass for a gang of men; but each 
of them has an existence before him as endless as that 
of his Maker. Such thoughts serve to awaken love 


within us toward our fellow-men. We ought, in a proper 


GOD. Os 


sense, to value ourselves, as being made for an immortal 
existence, endowed by him “ who only hath immortal- 
ity,” with an attribute of his own divine nature. 

There is enough in the thought of this Eternal God 
to awaken pain and sorrow at the idea of having 
sinned against him, of being in any way contrary to 
him ;- and this, too, irrespective of any injurious conse- 
quences likely to befall us. For its own sake, as intrin- 
sically right, and even though we might never reap any 
benefit from it, godly sorrow, leading to repentance, 
should be exercised by every one who knows God, on 
perceiving that he has not rendered to him that which 
is his due. , 

There is sublimity, as well as reasonableness, in re- 
ligion. Prayer to such a Being, encouraged, and not 
only so, but required, by him, heard too, and answered, is 
obviously our first duty, our highest privilege. ‘* Man, in 
audience with the Deity,” attains his greatest elevation. 

As to the feeling on the part of many, that prayer to 
such a Being, and especially any thing of the nature 
of love and comminion, is forbidden by the distance 
between us and by the solemn awe which a proper contem- 
plation of God awakens, we have a remarkable recog- 
nition of this natural apprehension, and a kind regard to 
it, on the part of the Most High. 

He evidently recognizes it where he begins by saying, 
“For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth 
eternity, whose name is Holy ;”’ all which awakens dread, 


and increases a sense of distance between us and God, 
3 


26 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


which is not abated when he adds, “I dwell in the high 


y] 


and holy place ;”’ and yet all this is designed as a preface 
to this assurance, — ‘‘ with him also that is of a contrite 
and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, 
and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” We have 
in this a recognition and an appreciation on the part of 
God of the natural dread which man feels in approach- 
ing his Maker, and an implied answer to our arguments 
against the possibility of intercourse with him. 

It is exceedingly useful to contemplate, with a proper 
spirit, this dread mystery of God. He himself encourages 
it in his word, by repeatedly bringing to view his self-exist- 
ence, his eternity. It is useful to bring our minds into 
connection with that which contradicts all our conscious- 
ness, our experience and observation, like this truth of the 
self-existence of God. Every thing which we see and 
know had a beginning. We, ourselves, with our present 
powers, capable of endless increase, began to be. But God 
says to us, ‘*‘ Before me there was no God formed, neither 
shall there be any after me.” If we try to comprehend or 
explain this, we are baffled as the ocean is in its strife to 
overcome the land: — ‘‘ though the waves toss themselves, 
yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they 
not pass over.” This serves to make us humble. A 
proper recognition and a devout contemplation of this 
creat mystery so strike the mind with a sense of its lit- 
tleness, as to curb the proud attempts of reason to explain 
things which lie beyond its province. We find ourselves 


brought to the limits of knowledge in one direction, and 


GOD. oF 


the fear of God falls upon us, his excellency makes us 
afraid. ‘The question will recur: What made it neces- 
sary that there should bea God? What determined it? 
How did it come to pass? The immediate answer which 
arises is, Nothing determined it. It did not come to pass. 
He always was. So, if we look at the sun with the naked 
eye for one moment, we feel that our eyesight is a limited 
faculty. ‘That sun, however, is but a spark compared 
with the whole creation of God. No wonder, if we 
attempt to comprehend God’s eternity, that our eyesight 
is blasted ; the mind reels, it loses its self-control. 

This predisposes us, if we feel aright, to seek for a rev- 
elation from Him. Has he spoken tome? When and 
where ? and what is the proof of it? and what does He 
teach me? what will He have me believe concerning 
Him? what duties does He require of me? 

Thus we are prepared to consider the subject of a 
Divine Revelation. It will help us in all our inquiries 
relating to religious truth if we remember that Theology 
is properly, The knowledge of God; and that the more 
we know of God, if our hearts are right with Him, the 
more simple He seems to us. ‘* Increasing in the knowl- 
edge of God”’ is indeed, in one sense, going out to sea, the 
prospect widening, the horizon ever receding ; and at the 
same time, to the heart of one who loves God, knowing 
more of Him is like coming to land, rounding capes, enter- 
ing bays, seeing the waves roll ashore, and the woods 
meeting the waters. Perfectness in our knowledge of 


God is progressively attained the more that we love Him. 


28 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Since men are equally limited as to their capacity of 
understanding that which is infinite, knowledge of the 
Infinite One must be derived chiefly from those spiritual 
conceptions of his character which are imparted only 
to a spiritual mind. ‘Every one that loveth, is born 
of God, and knoweth God.” ‘He that loveth not, 
knoweth not God, for God is love.”” We infer from this 
that our conceptions of even the natural attributes of God 
depend very much upon our complacency in his moral 
perfections. 


IT. 


DaveVileNeuy. Ry HAV) ts EeACT I OeNe 


3 * 





IEA Ee 


DIVINE REVELATION. 


HEN De . Tocqueville was in this country, he 

asked to see a Sabbath School. He was struck 
with seeing a Bible in the hands of every scholar. “Is 
this common?” said he. ‘ What a mighty influence it 
must have on a nation!”’ 

Think of the number of Sabbath School pupils in the 
world, and that the Bible is the subject of their study. 
It must be a supernatural book. If it were newly dis- 
covered, we might account for the interest which it ex- 
cites, by its novelty. Though new to many who study 
it, they who teach it and are familiar with it are equally 
interested by the book; it continues to excite and to 
repay their efforts to understand and teach it. No other 
book could endure such a test. Take that interesting 
book, Audubon’s “ Birds of America.” There is every 
thing in it to excite the interest of the young and old, 
in one department of Natural History. But before a 
great while, all would tire of it. You could not bring 
the children of America together year after year to 
study birds. But let us take “the myriad-minded 


82 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Shakespeare.” It is no risk to say that even he would 
fail to keep up the interest of the human mind sufficiently 
to secure a periodical study of his thoughts and language 
by the young, the middle-aged, and the old, from year 
to year. We may go further. Not even a book founded 
on the Bible itself would be capable of affording such 
interest to the human mind, if made the subject of peri- 
odical study. 

There is another test to which the Bible is subjected, 
greater, if possible, than that which is applied to it by its 
use in the Sabbath Schools of all Christian lands. 

Let us think of the Christians of all countries where 
the Bible is found, sitting with that Book in their hands 
every morning previous to entering upon the duties of — 
the day. At night, they repair again to this Book. 
What must the Book be to furnish the minds and hearts 
of intelligent people, and people of every degree of ca- 
pacity, with such exhaustless supplies of thought and emo- 
tion? Shakespeare, again, could not stand such a test. 
“Do not read Pilgrim’s Progress to me any more,” said 
a cultivated missionary lady, near her end, to her hus- 
band; ‘“ Bunyan tires me; but I can hear you read the 
Bible without fatigue.” Certain books for certain pur- 
poses may have an unfailing interest for particular indi- 
viduals, as in the case of Alexander the Great, who is 
said to have kept Homer under his pillow. But here 
is a book whose interest is not confined to particular 
classes and conditions, but all who love it (and they are 


counted by millions) find it appropriate to every time 


DIVINE REVELATION. 36 


and condition. ‘The young married pair begin their 
wedded life with reading it in their new home; it is the 
only book which is admitted statedly on festive occasions ; 
it is in place at funerals; it is not a solemnity for a 
Christian to swear on any other book ; it furnishes texts 
for all the pulpits of Christendom Sabbath after Sabbath ; 
it has been the occasion of more volumes in various de- 
partments of knowledge than any other book; it has 
filled the picture galleries of the Old World with more 
productions of art than have been occasioned by any 
other volume, whether of history or poetry. Apt quo- 
tations from it reinforce the arguments and appeals of 
the secular orator; they have an effect upon the mind 
unlike quotations from any other source. Its effect upon 
the mind is described by saying, It ‘‘ is quick and power- 
ful, sharper than any two-edged sword.” 

Josephus has written a history parallel with the history 
in the Bible. Few, comparatively, of those who read the 
Bible have ever seen Josephus, and of those who are 
familiar with his writings no one ever thinks to place 
him on a level with Moses and the evangelists. 

So that we may accord with the sentiment of Sir 
Walter Scott on his dying bed, when he said to his son- 
in-law, ‘* Bring me the book;”’ and when Mr. Lockhart 
said, ‘“* What book, Sir?’’ “There is but one Book,” 
replied the great British writer of fiction. Such consider- 
ations as these are sufficient to satisfy any reflecting mind 
that the Bible is a supernatural book. Had it obtained a 


false reputation as such, it is more than time that, with 


34 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


other exploded pretensions to supernatural origin and 
authority, it should have passed away. But the Bible 
never had such a hold upon the human mind as now, 
if we may infer any thing from the extent of its present 
circulation. 

Now here is a Book exerting such an influence on 
the mind of the human race, accepted as their guide in 
religion by all who acknowledge the only living and 
true God. 

We may, therefore, adopt what is called the a posteriort 
mode of reasoning, namely, from effect to cause ; we may 
take the fact and reason backward, and say, God would 
not have allowed such a book, under his name and with 
his asserted sanction, to exert that influence, unless it had 
proceeded from Him. Nor would He have allowed it 
to hold such a place without making it such that it 
might safely be taken for an infallible guide. Infalli- 
bility is essential to confidence in a guide or directory ; 
or, if it be lable to variations for any cause, those varia- 
tions must have laws which can be ascertained, and the 
knowledge of them be applied, to give the great standard 
a perfect authority. 

Accordingly we may say that the Most High, knowing 
the use which would be made of the Bible by the great 
family of man, prepared it with a view to its being an in- 
fallible guide in the knowledge of Himself and of our 
duty to Him. 

He knew that men, in all conditions and under all 


circumstances, would resort to it for direction and for 


DIVINE REVELATION. 35 


consolation ; therefore He must have prepared it, with 
divine skill, for such a purpose. This is true unless the 
Bible and its influence are yet to prove a delusion. If 
the Bible justly exerts the power which it holds over the 
human mind, and will continue to do so, we are shut 
up to the conclusion that a benevolent God ordained 
and sanctioned it. 

For we have seen, in the preceding pages, that deszgn 
is the great proof that there is an intelligent, creating 
Mind, a First Cause of all things. With equal conclu- 
siveness we may take the Bible and its influence, and 
argue that they evince a designer, and that that designer 
must have been He to whom the Bible ascribes its 
origin. 

In Paley’s celebrated chapter on the Goodness of the 
Deity, and in some of the Bridgewater Treatises, — for 
example, on the Human Hand,—we infer the benevo- 
lence of God from these his works. But the Bible is most 
wonderfully adapted to the human mind, and to all its 
conditions. ‘There is, therefore, benevolence in its plan 
and object ; and benevolence far beyond that which we 
infer from any created thing. If so, there is justice in its 
claim to be that which its readers make of it, —an infalli- 
ble revelation of the character and will of God. 

When He hung the earth upon nothing, He fixed the 
North Star, and He endowed the north itself with a 
mysterious power of magnetism to guide the mariner 
and the pathless traveller. He cannot have left the 


soul of man without a sure source of information as to 


36 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


that which he “is to believe concerning God, and what 
duty God requires of him.” If the Bible be not that 
Word of God, we have no Word of God. 

We say that from the beginning God has afforded 
man an infallible directory to the knowledge of Him- 
self and of the duty of man to his God. At first it 
was imparted by word of mouth, God holding personal 
converse with men. Meanwhile, men with whom He 
thus conversed were preparing records of his commu- 
nications to them, embodying principles and _ precepts 
which would be of universal application in human 
affairs. When God had ceased to speak directly to 
men, they had his written messages containing his law, | 
which law He again caused to be illustrated by long 
histories of its application to individuals and nations, 
these histories being recorded, One after another, for suc- 
ceeding times. Then the Son of God appears, and his 
words are recorded by those whom He appointed for 
that purpose, promising them that all things should be 
brought to their remembrance. ‘Thus the Bible is com- 
pleted. The great question now is, Have we an infal- 
lible Bible ? | 

Jesus had one. He amended not one tittle of the 
Bible as it existed in his day. He reproved no scribe 
for altering it. He did not set it aside. Yet he was 
the world’s great Teacher. When a teacher from a 
Christian land goes into a Hindoo or Chinese school, 
does he retain the old . geographies and the reading 


books, without emendation, or cautionary instruction as 


DIVINE REVELATION. 37 


to their defects? The Saviour set his seal to the Scrip- 
tures of his day as of infallible authority, and therefore 
of essential accuracy. He reproved the men of his day 
for making void the word of God through their tradi- 
tions, but not a reproof do we find for ‘“‘ corrupted text,” 
‘“‘various readings,” “grave errors.” Our Scriptures 
are the same as those in use by the Saviour and his 
Apostles. They were infallible with Him. Should they 
not be so with us? Let this be refuted, or let the Old 
Testament, at least, be admitted to be of divine au- 
thority. 

But the great subject of these infallible Scriptures in 
the Saviour’s time was Himself, his coming, his nature, 
his person, his work. Therefore the infallible Old 
Testament must have an infallible counterpart. If Christ 
declared that not one jot nor one tittle should pass from 
the law till all be fulfilled, we either now possess, or 
we must expect, a perfect infallible completion of a 
work in which the Old Testament constitutes one part, 
as really as one shell of a bivalve implies and requires 
another. 

Of course, many were not slow to write things which 
they themselves believed, or wished others to believe, 
were inspired. Some of these writings gained credence 
and authority for different lengths of time; but one of the 
most remarkable and satisfactory things with regard to 
the constitution of the Bible is the way in which the 
uninspired writings dropped out of use. Councils did not 


depose them. The human heart deposed them; they 
4 


38 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


were tried in all seasons of human necessity, and were 
found wanting, and they became generally dis-esteemed 5 
and then councils made enactments against them, express- 
ing the common verdict of the world. The Christian’s 
closet, sick rooms, dying beds, deposed the Apocrypha 
before it was publicly set aside. 

The Jew and the Christian watched each other with 
great jealousy as to their respective sacred writings. ‘The 
Pharisees and Sadducees were opposed to each other 
on the point of literal adherence to the written word, the 
Pharisees claiming to add traditions to the Scriptures, and 
the Sadducees with equal zeal defending the text and the 
literal interpretation. God, who uses evil men to accom- 
plish some of his purposes, employed these hostile sects to 
guard his written word. 

To analyze inspiration is very much like anatomizing 
a smile. No one can tell how much is due to muscles, 
how much to nerves, how much to blood, how much to 
thought, and how much to emotion. But a smile is 


proof of an indwelling soul. 





6 smiles from reason flow, 
To brutes denied.” 


As to the nature of Inspiration, the degree in which 
the Bible is inspired, we shall find that the highest theory 
of inspiration is the most easily maintained. That the- 
ory is, that a benevolent God, who from the beginning 
communicated directly with men by word of mouth, 


has given to men, at the withdrawal of his visible 


DIVINE REVELATION. 39 


presence and audible words, a written Word, which is 
a divinely authorized and infallible exposition of his will. 

It is implied in this proposition that the Bible is as 
really a communication from God as though it were 
written on his throne with his own hand, and had been 
conveyed from heaven to earth in the sight of men. 

To this proposition, derived from our belief in the 
benevolence of God, the wants of men, and the manner 
in which God met those wants from the beginning (and 
we no less need an infallible guide at the present time), 
there are natural and obvious objections. 

1. It is said that the great variety in the style of the 
different books is inconsistent with the idea that God 
dictated the whole volume. — But do we not rather see 
in this variety of style and manner an additional illus- 
tration of the divine skill and goodness? If God should 
inspire all the singing birds on the first day of May with 
some sudden joy, and give them a new song, we should 
not expect to hear the canary bird sing precisely like the 
nightingale, but each bird would express its song in notes 
peculiar to itself. God has not made every: thing of 
one color. ‘There are, it may be, so many kinds of 
voices in the world, and none of them is without signifi- 
cation.’ ‘The same benevolence which ordained them for 
our pleasure, also had regard to our tastes and feelings in 
making the Bible various as to its style and manner. It 
is not all didactic, nor poetic, nor hortatory, nor historical ; 
it is not all sublime in diction, nor is it all extremely 


simple ; but regard is had to the subject in hand; and 


40 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


the result of the whole is that the Book is suited to every 
capacity and taste; and in every department of writing 
it has the preéminence. It was written during a period 
of fifteen hundred years, and from thirty to forty men 
were employed to write it. : 

2. But it is said there is a loose, uncertain way of stat- 
ing many things which does not consist with the idea 
of its being divinely inspired. Things are stated indefi- 
nitely ; but if the writer were inspired, he must have 
known precisely the nature, or number, and quantity, 
and the time, of the thing described. Then, again, there 
is exaggeration, which it is said cannot be supposed would 
be used in a divine communication. | 

The answer is, If the Bible is a book for the human 
race, it is written not for angels, nor for any other order 
of beings, but for man. It will be adapted to his laws 
of thought and speech. If witnesses testify in it, they 
will testify as honest witnesses testify in human courts 
of justice, with general agreement, but with such dis- 
crepancies in non-essentials as will confirm our belief in 
their honesty. Instead of giving the exact number in 
every case, it will adopt the large, general way of speak- 
ing which is natural and proper in common things, and 
such as good historians generally employ. Its metaphors 
will sometimes be bold and free, not timorously and 
slavishly exact. If the armies of the East are gathered 
together it will be likely to say of them that they “ lay 
along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; 


and their camels were without number, as the sand by 


DIVINE REVELATION. 41 


the sea for multitude.” This gives a more correct 
idea of multitude than though the precise number had 
been stated,— say, three hundred and sixty thousand 
two hundred and forty-one. 

So with regard to the multitudes before the throne, 
—§itis of course below the truth to say that “the num- 
ber of them was a thousand times ten thousand and thou- 


’ and yet that expression gives 


sands of thousands ;’ 
us a better idea of vastness than a number definitely 
and exactly expressed, though it were greater than this. 
We would not hold in great repute the taste or judg- 
ment of one who should insist that inspiration should 
have told us the precise time of day, instead of saying, 
‘‘and when the sun was hot,” or ‘“ when the day began 
to wear away.” 

Far more in accordance with our ordinary mode of 
expressing gratitude is it, to say, ** How precious, also, 
are thy thoughts unto me, O God; how great is the 
sum of them; they are more in number than the sand,” 
than though one should say precisely how many bless- 
ings he had received, supposing that they could be reck- 
oned up in order. 

But when we come to cases in which exactness is essen- 
tial, we must expect to find it, as, for example, in the 
number of the first deacons, the number of the Apos- 
tles, geographical statements, and things of like sort. 

3. But it is said that mutilations have happened to the 
inspired text, so that learned men differ as to the mean- 


ing of certain passages. If God gave men an authentic 
4* 


42 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


record of his mind and will, would not the same benevo- 
lence which prepared the Bible for man keep it from 
essential injury ? | 

The answer is, No essential injury has happened to 
the Bible. Gilbert Wakefield says that the ‘ various 
readings” of different passages proposed by scholars 
amount to more than one hundred thousand. Even in 
this multitude of emendations, involving great uncer- 
tainty of interpretation, the testimony of the Bible on 
any one subject relating to faith or duty is not essen- 
tially impaired. But there are difficulties, for example, 
in the various genealogies, which it is hard to explain 
with certainty. It is a wonder that, without the art 
of printing, and being perpetually copied by the pen, 
the text of Scripture has suffered no more damage. If 
it had suffered nothing in this way during the transcrip- 
tions from age to age, it would have been a miracle. 
The hand of time has been upon it.. But its testimony 
in every thing essential to the great purpose for which 
it was given is unimpaired. 

4, But is every passage inspired? And did every pas- 
sage need inspiration? ‘Salute Asyncritus, Hermas, 
Phlegon,” — was this inspired? * The cloak which I left 
at Troas bring with thee,— but especially the parch- 
ments.” Did it need the influence of the Holy Spirit to 
think or to express this ?— All these things are in accord- 
ance with the great and wise purpose of God to make the 
Bible a book adapted to human modes of thought and 


feeling. These little things, as it were, tone down the 





DIVINE REVELATION. A3 


divine work to our susceptibilities. These things were 
thrown in to make the work human, not angelic. They 
are earth on the roots of a plant, showing that the plant 
came from the soil. Every great work of art has small 
touches in it, concerning which one might also inquire, 
Did they require genius and its inspiration to introduce 
them? We see a rope hanging from the top of the 
cross in the picture of the Crucifixion by Rubens. 
Could not a common hand have painted that rope ? 
The genius of Rubens brought it into the picture to give 
a naturalness to the sketch. A common mind might 
have regarded it as too trivial for such a place. It is 
a part of the great whole. To select it and question 
whether that stroke in the picture really required the 
mind and pencil of Rubens, is to criticize in a way 
which, in a gallery of paintings, would bring a man’s 
taste into disrepute. 

5. But if the Bible was made for all men, how hap- 
pens it that so small a part of the race possesses it ?— 
Every nation once had the knowledge of the true God. 
Many have lost it, and they have entailed ages of igno- 
rance and sin upon their posterity. This belongs among 
those truths of which we are compelled to say, ‘“* How 
unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past 
finding out.’ It also teaches us the nature and extent 
of that dread law by which the sins of men may be 
visited upon their descendants for many generations. 

6. But there are things in the Bible which cannot be 
read and should not be read in public, nor even before 


a family. 


44 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


So there are in the statute book of every State, and in 
the dictionaries, and in the books of domestic medicine. 
But if the Bible had failed to speak of certain things, it 
would have been deficient as a reprover and guide in 
human conduct. Its suitableness for public reading in 
all its parts is not a test of its propriety. ‘This is so in 
other things’ besides the Bible. 

It is not claimed that the men who wrote the Bible 
were necessarily. under divine guidance wherever and 
however employed. When the business in hand needed 
divine interposition, it was given. But when, for exam- 
ple, they differed in opinion and in action, it had not 
been judged necessary that they should have supernat- 
ural aid. As writers of the Bible they claim to speak 
for God; and when they do not speak in his name and 
by his authority, we are informed that they speak ‘ by 
permission and not by commandment.” 

Things too numerous to be dwelt upon at length 
crowd upon the mind as evidences of the divine inspi- 
ration of the Bible. A few will be mentioned: 

1. Though written by nearly forty men during a pe- 
riod of about fifteen hundred years, it does not contradict 
itself. One plan runs through the whole, so that the 
Bible to a very great degree is its own interpreter. ‘This, 
in the opinion of some, is the allusion in that passage 
by Peter: ‘ Knowing that no Scripture is of any private 
interpretation ;’’ —that is, it belongs to a system, it has 
no isolated character, no separate, private meaning. 


This is far different from that gloss given to the passage 


DIVINE REVELATION. 45 


by the Papists, who would have us understand by it 
that we have no right of private judgment and _ inter- 
pretation as concerns the word of God. 

2. The frequent occurrence of the expression, ‘* Thus 
saith the Lord,” and other forms of speaking in God’s 
name, which meet us constantly in the Bible, make 
one think what hardihood and eftrontery he must have 
had, — indeed beyond beliet, — who would have dared to 
use such asseverations without authority. But if these 
forms of quotation were authorized, the Bible is the 
word of God. It is impossible to conceive of such 
depravity as would be implied in saying fifty times in 
as many chapters, “the word of the Lord came unto 
me,’ when it was not true. One great lie, we can con- 
ceive, might be forged and uttered; but to be repeating 
it every few lines, requires a degree of heaven-daring. 
impiety which certainly in men otherwise exemplary 
is not to be looked for, unless it be by an extremely 
credulous infidel. 

3. The perfect morality of the Bible is a proof of its 
divine origin. All other standards of morality favor 
human weakness and sin. It shields no good man when 
he has done wickedly, but it deals impartially, without 
respect of persons. It is remarkable that not only is 
no attempt made to give the least palliation to the sins 
of David and Peter, but that no kind words are used 
respecting them, to engage a feeling of tenderness and 
compassion for them. With every new translation of 


the Bible, the knowledge of their sins is travelling. over 


46 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


the earth, fearless of the scepticism and the sneers of 
men, of whom if all were known, perhaps, as all will 
be known in the great day, David and Peter would at 
least have nothing to fear in a comparison with them. 
The Bible alone, of all biographies, deals thus faithfully 
with character. 

4. It is perfectly adapted to every human mind and 
heart, in every possible variety and combination of cir- 
cumstances. Bad men could not have forged such a 
book; good men would not have done it. 

5. The absence of many things in the Bible suggests 
a powerful proof of its inspiration. Without infallible, 
divine guidance, it seems impossible that those who had 
it in their power should not have attempted to impart to 
men that which they so eagerly desire and seek after, 
namely, particular knowledge concerning the intermedi- 
ate state. Silence reigns over all that region of knowl- 
edge, unbroken by any intimation whatever on the part 
of those who have returned temporarily from within the 
veil. That this silence is benevolent, no one can 
question who reflects upon the probable consequences 
of encouraging our curiosity and inquiry respecting the 
things which le beyond this world. If uninspired 
men had composed the Bible, it is easy to suppose 
that they would have said something to gratify hu- 
man curiosity with regard to those who-had_ been 
dead. None but Almighty power can have closed all 
lips to those things which relate to the world of spirits. 


Modern pretensions to a knowledge of supernatural 


DIVINE REVELATION. 47 


things show us what use men would have made of the 
slightest insight with regard to things within the veil. 

6. The evangelists have not in one instance passed an 
encomium upon Jesus, nor upon any of his friends. Nor 
have they thrown out one reflection upon his enemies. 
This is not the manner of man. Had there been im- 
posture or enthusiasm, this would have been otherwise. 
Christ’s life is not praised, nor his death lamented, his 
friends commended, nor his enemies blamed. Every thing 
is told with perfect simplicity, the naked truth is stated, 
and it is neither aggravated nor adorned, whether it 
relate to evil or to good. Unless the minds of the 
writers had been under the control of a superior power, 
they never would have written in this manner, for it 
is contrary to all human experience. 

As to the subject of Verbal Inspiration, we do not 
claim that each word is spoken or written mechanically 
.by the Holy Spirit acting on the faculties of inspired 
men. This is an unworthy view of the subject. If the 
Holy Spirit only superintended the use of words by the 
sacred writers, this would insure infallibility ; and that 
is all which would be necessary to plenary inspiration. 
But it cannot be explained why the language of Scripture, 
if there were no supernatural influence extending into it, 
should uniformly have the indescribable peculiarity which 
characterizes it, a peculiarity which cannot be fully 
accounted for by our sacred associations with Holy Writ. 
Besides, we think in words. If inspiration must be com- 


municated to the Sacred Writings, it is unphilosophical 


48 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


to say that the thoughts were suggested, guided, superin- 
tended, but that no regard was had to the words, each 
writer being wholly left to express his imspired thoughts 
as he pleased. Right words in the right places are 
essential to the object of a communication. If, there 
fore, God purposes to make a communication to men, he 
must have perfect control not only of the thoughts, but also 
of the words, in which it is to be conveyed. This will 
be consistent with the entire freedom of the writer ; for 
we are told that “the spirits of the prophets are subject 


29 


to the prophets.” It is also consistent with the employ- 
ment by each writer of his own peculiar habit of express- 
ing himself, and with the infusion of his peculiar tempera- 
ment into his communication. 

If any one supposes that God could not, consistently 
with the laws of mind, inspire men to speak and write, 
by suggesting, or guiding their words (though it is diffi- 
cult to see why there is any inconsistency in this), we 
may allude to the well-known fact that mental excite- 
ments are great helps to words. Every one whose mind 
is greatly quickened by a subject of thought, or by strong 
feelings, talks to himself; we notice this in the streets ; 
we all find ourselves setting forth to ourselves, in words, 
when we are alone, the strong points of a case which 
deeply interests our feelings. Moreover, so much depends, 
oftentimes, upon a word, that it is difficult to conceive 
of plenary inspiration without supposing a divine agency 
in the words of Scripture. But this does not make it 


necessary to believe that the power of using words was 


DIVINE REVELATION. 49 


taken possession of in any such way as to reduce the 
choice of words toa mere mechanical act. It is the fear 
of being obliged to believe this which leads many to 
reject more than they really intend to do in speaking 
against Verbal Inspiration. All that is essential on this 
- point is this: Did not the Holy Spirit secure the expression 
of his thoughts and of his will in such words as he pre- 
ferred? In saying that he did, we no more deny the free- 
dom of the writers than we do in saying that they thought 
under the direction of the Spirit. 

A confirmation of supernaturalness in the inspiration of 
the Bible is found in this, that Christians in great trouble, 
as well as in devotion, quote Scripture to themselves and 
to others as they quote no other language. We are as- 
tonished at the pertinency and applicability of passages 
which we had not before considered. To converse with 
an experimental Christian in great trouble is like walking 
on a stormy shore when the sea has thrown to land its 
precious deposits. No one who has a relish for spiritual 
things can doubt, at such times, that the Holy Ghost, 
the Sanctifier and Comforter, made the Bible for the 
human heart; it is ‘not of blood, nor of the will of the 
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.’ 

But this brings to view a truth which we do well to 
consider, namely, That it is as impossible to give an 
unregenerate man a clear conception of inspiration, as it 1s 
of the deity of the Lord Jesus. He must have experience, 
in order to appreciate the very highest kinds of evidence 


pertaining to both of these truths. He will be apt to 
5 


50 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


cavil till he has it; and when his experience makes 
these things real to him, he will find himself demanding 
them as necessary to his spiritual life, and no arguments 
will be able to disprove them ; for they will have become 
identified with his spiritual consciousness. 

The conclusion of the Bible looks as though revelation 
were finished until the end of time. In this one book, 
therefore, God has included all which it is necessary for 
man to know in this world concerning God and a future 
state. When we think of the vastness of the subjects 
which lie about us and beyond us, and the infinite 
importance of authentic information about them, the 
Bible assumes an importance and value not unlike that 
of a lamp to one in a dark, subterranean passage; or the 
sides of a ship to one who reflects that a hundred fathoms 
of water are underneath him; or a friendly island to one 
who has gained a foothold there, he knows not how 
many miles from main land. The Bible is, in some 
respect, like a narrow foot-bridge over a deep stream, 
with midnight darkness round about. 

Nothing can exceed the injury which a man inflicts 
upon his fellow men who weakens their confidence in 
this book, or in any way impairs its influence over 
them. Those who cut the telegraphic wires, on the 
arrival of important commercial news, are justly repro- 
bated; but there is no other means of communicating 
between God and men if the Bible is disowned. “If 
they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they 
be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” The first 


DIVINE REVELATION. 51 


thing which comes to pass when an unbeliever begins to 
fear God, is, he gives implicit credence to the Bible, and 
the first step in unbelief usually is to underrate the Word 
of God. 

We sometimes meet with those who seem to deplore 
the superstitious reverence which people have for the 
Bible, and they write to caution men against such in- 
discriminating and enthusiastic love. Now there are 
children whose love for their parents is almost idola- 
trous. They see no faults in them; they find every 
virtue in those parents. Suppose that one should write 
a book to children, cautioning them against excessive 
filial love. It is not an error which requires public 
reproof. Cautionary labored suggestions on that topic 
would awaken the suspicion of cold heartedness in the 
reprover. We should at least doubt if his own child- 
hood had been happy. 

Many objections against the Bible are the result of 
mistake and want of knowledge. <A cavilling sea-cap- 
tain once quoted this passage, as though it read thus in the 
Bible (veferrmg to Acts xxvii. 18), ‘“‘ And from thence 
we fetched a compass’”’ aboard, “and came to Rhegium.”’ 
He said that as there was no compass in those days, the 
Bible, or that part of it at least, must be an imposture. 

If the Bible be all which we claim for it, we feel dis- 
posed to acquit David of excessive zeal and enthusiasm 
when he says, ‘Thy Word shall not be sold for thou- 
sands of gold and silver.’ ‘More to be desired are 


they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also 


5Z EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


than honey and the honeycomb,” is his impassioned 
language when speaking of the utterances of the Most 
High in the forms of precepts, testimonies, and statutes. 
The written Word of God now being the only source 
from which those things, so precious to David, are con- 
veyed to us, has all the intrinsic value, and should excite 
all the enthusiastic love, which are expressed in the 
strong and ardent language of the royal bard. 

The Bible is better than visions. So Peter tells us, 
who was on the mount where Christ was transfigured, 
and Moses and Elijah appeared and talked with Him. 
But what effect had this heavenly vision on the three 
disciples? First, they were sore afraid; secondly, they 
fell asleep ; and thirdly, they ‘ wist not what they said.” 
No wonder, then, that Peter, describing this, should 
say: “* We HAVE A MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY.” 
One reason why it was more sure, was,‘it was written. 
A writing is surer evidence than speech. We remem- 
ber that it is the frequent language of Christ and of the 
evangelists, when they decide a thing beyond dispute, 
‘Tt is written.” But modern unbelievers object to the 
idea that God should make a revelation to mankind in 
a book. They represent it as derogatory to the vary- 
ing, expanding views which the human mind takes of 
truth, to think that all which God will say to us can 
be comprised in one volume. But it is noticeable that 
when these objectors seek to influence the human mind 
by their discoveries in moral science, they straightway 


resort to the press, and to the making of a book. A 


DIVINE REVELATION. 5S 


pamphlet or volume, which ‘men can take into their 
hands in their quiet, meditative hours, they deem essen- 
tial to the best influence on public opinion, and they 
would none of them regard it as absurd should all na- 
tions and all times hold some particular work of theirs 
as the standard in its department. God employed thirty 
or forty men, through a period of fifteen hundred years, 
to prepare a compendious exhibition of duty, and of his 
character and will, as illustrated for so long a time, in 
the history of individuals and nations. No one who uses 
the press to influence others, we should suppose, would 
think lightly of it, or be able to suggest any more eftfect- 
ual way of bestowing on man an all-sufficient and infalli- 
ble guide. That such a guide, could we obtain it, would 
be an inestimable favor, none will dispute. It may be 
repeated, — the benevolence of God is a proof, which 
cannot be exceeded by demonstration, that He has 
bestowed such an indispensable and invaluable gift upon 
man. We find Him, from the very first, holding per- 
sonal converse with men; and now that He has ceased, 
the progress of the race, by his goodness, in useful arts, 
and in all that exalts mankind, forbids us to believe that 
we have retrograded in the privilege or in the mode of 
receiving authentic instruction from God our Maker. 
We, therefore, may not only believe that the Bible is a 
divine revelation, but we are warranted in holding that, 
for all the purposes of human welfare and progress, no 
better form of divine revelation has been at any time 


enjoyed by man. 


5 * 



























ee 


aye 


tab veh, ‘aa Cn teint ‘bhties pets 
ae we yaiph ¥? jis vhintah: arti gneliiat th 
‘ela seen iv sft \ Ni ait Me “ep alae 


ets er 
3 


f 


a (ey aN os i ce aes ie 

‘ Raye. 4 Fir. fabir hata: Sorrel a, pager oo 

ie | eee Tee i NT skier sou lal a 

4 asi Seat ibis ay Sashes sian ie ih Jini aie 

i Bree haan avait: bale va <i ne Paes de fa 

“a * % Ot \ be it inal, tye tbh ne PP td tecihda cae. Ji 
ee ahi NOR HOY i oben x oki cil N 

i" eat id pein TF ik Beer pats Nl herd ity me * inf 

E | ? Saws Api ae itt ay tisha Vay hd a civindie 

ma veges oe De Sane yey Hi 3 apres dae A; " ot A Yay 4 is 

‘ eles. a 

on * is Beaty ee fet at xt uy i i a rod “Hiatt Me ‘Salve vigien joi 

i | Bois ok oh yi Re wi ifr: 2 i Meee 

. : ‘eaet Vee | . Pia ae th aie Period My <y ant 

. | pei Wurm iy si Paw muah’ pos ait 

i ee ee POE: Bia! tibbng ail 

| neiple fii a ane taut avs ik Basen is vn wr vay i ita J 

| ape E iy pit te Pei ye Ae hs A 7. ; lh fh ee Mas 


Se 


a even 
eee ee en ‘ Bae to i 
a sic warns insane act sialapihe el nac paalas i ; 
i ae “ain haa ie Ath wiastlir} Rie We ets olioogaaelieg . 
: a ee aa bP: ai Medea “Gh; Renton A ti lense 


Se 0 oh lth ad gah ibe see we shehioe 


« j MM ~. f et Ni _P. 
rey Ri TY rial a PEND. 


joes id 








: iu xi i oon ff 
es | ine 
a: ¢ 

# 


Bees: Pk 

= ral 

rs" a 4 

Beeb J tr 

| oan een t 1a Ad a di ee 


AAGE 


ere bi ces Rene loN ete bey: 


: mr _ 
| Ag i 

es 

e 

1 

de 
a? 
5 

- 

a) 
? . 
i 
= ** 
>» 

a 
o j - 


@ 


=] . Ly : os 
p vee ele 2 
rit-4nT 
ES : i a 
Paton eee ny & 


a. 


“a ou 


as ‘ 
4 
Pa 4 
+ + 
i 
es 
; i) + 
! 
® ' 
‘ 
k 
ere: 
bes 4% 
o > 
: fi) 
* rh 
Peni 
elma sa? 
ne ‘oe 
N : 
7 Tare 
a 
i4on 
a 
, 
Py 
‘ ‘ 
| at 
é 
' 
Ty ex 








III. 


THE TRINITY. 


HE common mode of discussing the subject of the 

. ‘Trinity is, to begin by saying of God, ‘ THERE 1s 
One; 18 He THREE?” 

When we do this, we begin at the infancy of knowl- 
edge upon this subject, and grope our way along to 
fuller light. 

But there is another way of treating the subject, 
which is more in accordance with the ordinary method 
of deducing a general proposition from ascertained facts. 
We begin where our knowledge ends, and so reason 
from without to the central truth. 

If the New Testament reveals THREE having the 
same divine names, attributes, works and worship, we 
may properly begin the investigation of the subject not 
by saying, *“* There is One; is He Three?” but, “ THrre 
ARE THREE; ARE THEY ONE?” | 

Let us assume that in the early ages of the world 
One God is revealed in opposition to Polytheism, — 
the tendency of the idolatrous heart of man being to 


multiply objects of divine worship. We will all admit, 


58 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


for the sake of the argument, that great stress was con- 
stantly laid on the unity of God in contradistinction to 
a plurality of gods, and that the human mind needed, 
all the time, to be impressed with the Oneness of God, 
to keep it from idolatry. If this were so, we can imagine 
that men could have said, Is this One God, himself, in 
any sense plural? We can see how natural it must 
have been that oneness should have been the prominent 
subject of contemplation and thought; and plurality in 
God, if the idea existed, be a subject of inquiry. 

Ages pass away, God reveals himself continually in 
his providence, and by direct disclosures of himself, till 
the record is made which is designed to be a sufficient 
revelation of God to man. 

With this completed revelation in our hands, and 
having reached the conclusion of all which we are to 
know concerning God in this world, and being in posses- 
sion of the light which Christian experience for so many 
centuries has thrown around the subject of imterpreta- 
tion, let us suppose that we find such a concurrent 
testimony in the world as would establish any discovery 
or opinion, that Zhree are revealed in the Bible as objects 
of divine worship. 

Now the question might properly be, Are They One? 
We have found that there is one only living and true 
God. If by the same kind of proof which establishes 
this we are led to the belief that there are Three who 
receive divine worship in Scripture, we cannot but ask, 
Is the former belief that there is but One God to be 


THE TRINITY. 59 


corrected by this completed revelation, and modified ? 
or, Are the Three, who are divinely worshipped, the One 
God, and is there threefoldness in the divine nature? | 

It might be the case that the evidences with regard 
to the Divine Three would be such that if one theory or 
the other, that is, the Divine Unity or the Trinity, is to 
give place, the proofs of threefoldness in the Godhead 
would justify us in saying, On logical grounds the exist- 
ence of Three divine objects of worship is as defensible 
as the existence of One God. 

To preserve our established and incontrovertible belief 
that there is but one only living and true God, at the 
same time that we are compelled to recognize Three 
divine objects of worship in the New Testament, we resort 
to the statement that the Three whom the Bible reveals 
with the same names, attributes, works and worship, 
are One God. With any supposable impossibility in the 
case we have nothing to do; for the question as to possi- 
bility in such a matter must, in the nature of things, be 
beyond the compass of the human understanding. More- 
over, in believing in One eternal, self-existent God we 
have consented to that which contradicts our observa- 
tion and baffles all our powers of thought. It has 
already been suggested that if one can keep his mind 
calm on the subject of a Being who never began to be, 
that is to say, if he refuses to be an atheist, he is pre- 
cluded, by his admission of incompetency, from deciding 
what the nature of this incomprehensible Being shall or 


shall not include in its infinite depths and heights. 


60 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


In speaking here of “ Three,” and of ‘ One,” it will 
be observed that the words “ Being,” * Persons,” ‘ Dis- 
tinctions,” ‘¢ Subsistencies,” are not used; for the question 
at present, with regard to the nature of the One and of the 
Three, is simply this: Are there Three who have divine 
names and attributes? Any further question at this 
point would make confusion, and the inquiry already 
suggested can be pursued as satisfactorily by following 
the mathematicians in using letters of the alphabet for 
unknown quantities, as in using words or names. ‘The 
writer of that disputed passage, 1 John iii. 7, sets us a 
good example here. He says: ‘For there are three 
that bear record in heaven.” 

As we approach the investigation of this doctrine, it is 
well to consider that there is nothing more practical than 
the subject of the Trinity. It involves great and all-im- 
portant questions as to the death of Christ, and its connec- 
tion with the forgiveness of sin. There must necessarily 
be an infinite distance between the death of a created 
being, —man or angel,—and of one in whom the Maker 
of all things is incarnate. If such a being is on the cross, 
between two malefactors, some great purpose is involved. 
The death of such a being is an event without a parallel. 
Hence it will be seen that to accept or to reject the doc- 
trine of the Trimity is not mere speculation, and it will 
readily be believed that stress is laid upon the doctrine, by 
those who receive it, chiefly because of its relation to the 
greatest of questions, What must I do to be saved? 


For we all agree that great prominence is given in the 





THE TRINITY. | 61 


Bible to the death of Christ. ‘* Who his own self bare 
our sins in his own body on the tree.” He “was deliv- 
ered for our offences, and was raised again for our justi- 
fication.” ‘That he by the grace of God should taste 
death for every man.” “He hath made him to be sin 
for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the 
righteousness of God in him.” 

If he who suffered on the cross was a mere creature, 
no atonement has been made in the sense of a substitution. 
Impression was the only object which can be inferred 
- from his death. But if God be incarnate, He who suffers 
on the cross is fulfillmg an object which is beyond a mere 
impression. What am I in my relation to God as a sin- 
ner? How can God forgive sin? What is its penalty ? 
Is Christ a substitute for me? What is the alternative 
if his substitution be not applied tome? The Scriptures 
have given the vast majority of their readers grounds, 
in their view, to believe that retributions are to be with- 
out end. This belief gains probability if an atonement 
has been made by an incarnate God. 

So, if the Holy Spirit be not God, but merely “ divine 
influence,” this will involve the question whether man 
must be the subject of a supernatural change, or merely 
of development and culture, in order to go to heaven. 
Moreover, great questions relating to the proper object 
of divine worship are involved here. 

If God has revealed himself to us as Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost, of course his moral administration over us 


proceeds with reference to this mode of his existence. 
. : 


62 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Does God approach man as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
or not? If He does, and that be his own divinely ap- 
‘pointed method, and man does not regard Him in thjs 
manner, it cannot be a matter of indifference. Suppose 
that men could contrive a way by which two thirds of 
our sun should be perpetually eclipsed. Vegetation, the 
arts, health, comfort, life, would feel the consequences. 
So it must be with the moral nature of that man to 
whom God is but one third of that which He has revealed 
himself to be. Plainly, too, that man worships a being 
who is not the God revealed in the Bible. 

On the other hand, if Christ be only a creature, and 
the Holy Ghost a name for divine influences, it must be 
detrimental to worship them. All error is injurious, first 


or last; ‘no lie is of the truth;” 


and error relating 
to the Supreme Object of divine worship must be of 
pernicious effect. Indeed, this error is no less than 
idolatry. Hymns to Christ compose a large part ot 
Christian worship, even from the time of Pliny, who 
wrote to the Emperor Trajan that the Christians were 
“accustomed to assemble before light, and to sing hymns 


to Christ as to God.” 
But some, who are unwilling to admit the doctrine 


with all which it implies, dispose of the argument drawr 
from the evidently superhuman character which the_ 
Bible ascribes to Christ, by consenting to lift Him up 
to an inconceivable height, and place Him in the region 
of impossible knowledge. Then they are ready to 


adopt the current language of Scripture, and the bold, 





THE TRINITY. 63 


strong phraseology of those who believe in his Deity ; 
and thus they lead some to think that they truly wor- 
ship Christ. Many, in their charity, are misled by 
these teachers. They are not willing to place Christ 
on the throne. They dispose of Him somewhere in the 
hiding-places of supernaturalism.! 

Between the most exalted creature and Deity there 
remains an infinite distance. If we should go hence 
ninety-five millions of miles to the sun, it would make 
no appreciable difference if we started from a house- 
top or from the sidewalk, from yonder hill or from 
the Himalayas. But there is infinitely less difference 
between that hill and those mountains, than between 
Christ, if He be an archangel, and Christ if He were 
in the beginning with God and was God. ; 

No doubt, however, some rely on Christ’s media- 
tion as the ground of acceptance with God, who never- 
theless do not accept his Deity. As to their acceptance 


with God, it is not for their fellow men to decide. 


1 This is well illustrated by an anecdote related to me by the clergy- 
man who took part in the conversation to which I shall now refer. An 
elderly lady, now deceased, a member of his church, was told by her 
pastor that he feared she was deficient in her views and feelings with 
regard to the nature of Christ. She protested that she had the most 
exalfed reverence for Christ. He told her that this was not enough. 
It was essential to her having a faith which accompanies salvation, as 
the Bible teaches us, that she should receive Christ just as he is pro- 
_ posed to us in the Bible. “Sir,” said she, “I do believe that Christ 
is e’en-a’most God.” Expressed in this way, we all see the absurdity 
of the idea that any exaltation of a creature can make him other 


than a creature. 


64 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Surely their views are often expressed with great de- 
voutness, and with much that is beautiful in their tone 
and spirit. But we are not warranted to make com- 
promises. While we cannot settle the question of their 
relation to God, we cannot but inquire how they can 
believe in a propitiation for sin, if Christ be only a 
creature; or how they can believe that the death of 
Christ is any thing more than an exponent, a signal, 
of peace. A vicarious sacrifice, that is, a sacrifice vicé, 
in the stead of, others, is impossible if Christ have only 
a created nature. Whether they do, or how they can, 
believe in atoning blood, we will not say. If they 
say that they do, some questions will arise as to the 
capability of a creature to atone for the sins of others; 
especially as the Bible expressly denies that the whole 
magnificent and costly system of Jewish sacrifices had 
any efficacy whatever except as types,—for we are 
told that ‘it is impossible that the blood of bulls and 
of goats should take away sin.” Is it any more pos- 
sible that the blood of a mere human being should 
be a propitiation ? Besides, do they worship Christ ? 
for He is worshipped in the Bible. If they worship 
Him, why? and in what way? as people worship 
Mary ? There is but One God ; have they more ? 

The doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, it will be sean 
is practical. We say that we find all those essentially 
divine things ascribed to Christ and to the Holy Ghost . 
which are ascribed to the Father. If we are asked, How 


do you explain these things consistently with your belief 


THE TRINITY. ‘aY5) 


in One God? we reply, By the doctrine of the Trinity. 
We are led to it irresistibly, by collecting the plain state- 
ments of Scripture in the natural use of our understand- 
ings. We must believe in Three Gods, or that the One 
God exists with a threefold distinction in his nature. 
That is called the doctrine of the Trinity. It is simply 
the theorem which stands at the head of enumerated facts, 
of which it is the result. Having stated the doctrine, it 
becomes us to pause; for the Bible leads us not one step 
beyond. It does not even contain the word Trinity, 
nor the word Unity. We are clearly warranted by 
Scripture in saying, that if one will believe in Christ 
just as the Bible reveals Him in his nature, and in His 
offices; and in the Holy Ghost, in his nature and offices ; 
and will feel and act toward them as the Bible prescribes, 
he will certainly be saved, even though he never should 
have heard, or never should use, the word ‘Trinity. 
True, he would find it a great convenience in helping 
him summarily to express his faith; but the knowl- 
edge or the use of the term will nowise affect the matter 
of his acceptance with God. 

| They err, therefore, who suppose that they must begin 
their Christian experience by forming to themselves the 
conception of God as existing in a threefold way. There 
is no countenance to this in the Scriptures. ‘Things are 
asserted of Christ and of the Holy Spirit which challenge 
our implicit faith. Believing them, the Bible is satisfied ; 
all else is the result of induction, and of conventional 


agreement and use. 
6 * 


66 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


There is one objection which many feel in approach- 
ing this subject, and with good reason, namely: that the 
Father is uniformly spoken of as God, and Christ always 
as ** Lord,” or as “the Son.” ‘But to us there is but 
one God, even the Father,—and one Lord Jesus 
Christ.” This passage is sufficient to indicate the point 
in hand. 

Before remarking upon that specific point, it may be 
well to direct attention to the essentially divine ascrip- 
tion which is made, even here, to Christ: “But to us 
there is but one God, even the Father, of whom are all 
things, and we in Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by 
whom are all things, and we by Him.” He “by whom 


are all things,”. 


we among them, hereby has a relation 
to us which authorizes worship; for a child’s father 
must receive parental honor; and though that father had 
a father, that does not weaken the relation of father and 
son between the parent and the child. So, whatever 
relation Christ may sustain to Deity, if Christ made 
us, shall we not worship our Maker? Shall we be told 
“no; for Christ had a Father’? He who made me is 
my God; and the Psalm says,—‘‘ Let us kneel before 
the Lord our Maker; for he is our God.” 

But the point before us is, that the name God is 
specifically applied to the Father in contradistinction to 
Christ, who is called Lord, or Son. The question, which 
is very naturally asked, is, ‘‘ How can it be right to call 
Christ God, when the name is so distinctly and em- 


phatically given to the Father?” 


THE TRINITY. 67 


Has it escaped the notice of the sincere and candid 
inquirer who puts this important question, that, very 
frequently, when God is spoken of in the New Testa- 
ment, the words ‘ Father,” or ‘even the Father,” are 
subjoined ? Now why should God need any expletive? 
When God and men, God and angels, are mentioned, 
we do not read, — *“‘ God (even the Father) and men ;” 
“‘God (the Father) and angels.” If Christ be a crea- 
ture, why is the word Father interposed in speaking of 
God and of Him? It is not a word of affection; the 
occasions, the tone of thought, do not require or justify 
the language of endearment; but the word Father is 
evidently added for the sake of definition. But we say 
again, Does God need definition when spoken of, or 
alluded to, in connection with his creatures? We there- 
fore think that the very common use of the word Father 
in connection with God, when Christ is also to be named, 
is one of the strong incidental proofs of the Trinity, 
and that the language of inspiration in this way does 
homage to the divine Son and Spirit when the name 
of God is used in connection with the name of the 
Father. 

But why, it is asked again, should the name God be 
so often applied by the Apostles to the Father, in the 
way of preéminent distinction, even if the doctrine of 
the Trinity be true? 

It will be shown in another place that the names God 
and Lord are appled in Scripture both to the Father 
and to the Son. While this is true, it may be observed 


68 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


that since Christ is both human and divine, and since 
the Holy Spirit is subordinated, the mind requires an 
object on which to fix itself in thinking of what we 
may call original, uncompounded, insubordinated Deity. 
We have it in the First Person of the Godhead, who is 
called Father. That there are constitutional reasons in 
Him, as related to us, for the appropriation of that name, 
as there are reasons in the Second Person of the Godhead 
for the name “the Word,” seems probable; but who 
will dogmatize here? It is true that Christian experi- 
ence serves to confirm that belief. — 

But in this connection it will be well to notice the 
significant fact, that the Saviour very seldom, in speak- 
ing of God, uses that name; but his expression is, * Fa- 
ther.” This is most remarkable. The Jews did not so, 
nor the disciples; it was not, therefore, on the part of 
Christ, a conformity to prevailing usage. There are 
between sixty and seventy instances in the Gospels in 
which the Saviour speaks of the /ather, or appeals to 
the Father, and the cases are few in which the word 
God is used by Him, unless the word father is sub- 
joined. ‘Twice only, in prayer, does He use the name 
God. We may venture at least to ask whether a mere 
creature in prayer would not commonly have indulged 
in the use of the name by which his Creator was known 
among men? ‘This mode of speaking, on the part of 
Christ, is most significant, in connection with our belief 
in the doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
When the Apostles speak of Christ in connection with 


THE TRINITY. 69 


God, it has already been noticed that the words “the 


Father,” or ** even the Father,” 
3 9 


are generally supplied. 

We hear it said, Why should we perplex ourselves 
about this inscrutable subject, which is confessedly be- 
yond the limitations of thought? It should be replied, 
We ought not to perplex ourselves about it. The Bible 
does not encourage us to speculate about it, nor about 
that inscrutable truth, the self-existence of God. The 
simple truths revealed concerning Christ and the Holy 
Spirit, all admit, are proper subjects of contemplation , 
but if, in contemplating them, one is led to worship 
Christ, and to ascribe divine names, attributes, and works 
to the Holy Spirit, what shall he do? Shall he call 
himself, and submit to be called, an idolater? or shall 
he not justify himself by saying that these Three must 
be One God? In saying this he enunciates the doctrine 
of the Trinity. 

But, it is said, ‘* How much more simple is the belief 
in one person in the Godhead! ‘The Trinity is incom- 
prehensible to children ;.it confuses their minds, and the 
minds of grown persons. But the idea of one divine 
Person is perfectly free from confusion.” 

So the people reasoned under the old system of astron- 
omy. ‘That the earth should go round the sun, filled 
the mind with amazement by the difficulties and seem- 
ing impossibilities which are involved in the theory. 
They all could understand the rising and setting of sun 
and stars, but the revolution of a globe, with oceans and 


rivers, around the sun, and on its axis, was a mystery 


T0 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


with which they preferred not to perplex themselves, and 
therefore they would not look into Galileo’s telescope. 
Their system certainly had the advantage of being more 
simple; but a fatal objection lay against it—that it did 
not account for all the phenomena. 

The question on such a subject as this is not as to our 
wishes or preferences; but we are all children in knowl- 
edge with regard to infinite things, and we are to receive 
and believe with meekness whatever God is pleased to 
reveal. 

We have already admonished ourselves that the first 
great truth—the existence of an Eternal, Uncreated 
Being —is a mystery too high for us. If we consent to 
believe it implicitly, the only question which we can 
consistently ask with regard to any other subject of reve- 
lation, is, Has God declared it? If so, its mystery is no 
valid reason against our implicit belief. 

We are therefore now to inquire, whether the Deity 
of Christ and of the Holy Ghost are revealed in the 
Bible. If so, the question will be, Are there three 
Gods? or, Does the one God exist as Three? Let no 
one feel that this subject is inimical to his peace; for if 


it be true, it is for his salvation and joy. 


IV. 


Petrie He rH halos. 


eo e, « Vireo pee, ee eee 


2 Jats A 7 : 7) . ; 7 = 

me ah) 5 j 4 alias om om a @ 6 » . 

iv: = - 7 4 x 7 : 4 
Oy 
“a ‘ - =e’ Gog i ae 
3 3; Fah Te ae alae 
; ae A | 
“— 7 - as f ‘ in eg ; , . 
y ‘ “ ' -_ au i me 


< 
< 
ie. 
a a 
- => 
im 
—- 
>, 
_ 





~ 
| 
* 
—— 
nn... 
. 
<— 
1] 
a 
* 
a 
Pa _ oe 
& : 
g on 
£ 
: 
oa 
: 


ae 
et ae 


fa c ) Ps 


ae ae, a 
= = >< * 
4 
; 
77> 
— 
a 2 
@ 
a 
> 
’ a 
~ 
sl 


eal 
= 


- ~~ ae Se 
*& 
- 
Cl 
~ 
y 
2 
~S 
—. 
Pe! 
. = ; 


is 
i ae | 
: \ b ‘ ¢ « } aa ha 
5 
} : 4 ' , - am ‘ i. at? 
belt A 
: é ( 7 { 4 { ka a 
7 
dy - f) f ‘ vr. | om 06 9 #@ 
( 
| bate by ae ~~ f “ a nN 4 5 
Pty PEAS " 
} , : [Fen oe , A 
rp by a ;f ¥: “7 (}-" a 4er7 
‘ > oT P > ) ,) P| ~] ® > 
| wt rt tees a ier Ns 
| - ' 7 ¢ ‘ : 7 
i . A 4 ny e 
‘ ‘ , y - ay) } 
¢* ; « 
Tee a LB’ pe PORES gy PR Sie aa 
| . Me " ’ Fe Pah Al at Foei i] , elle ros 
“i a ws a | al 1s 
mene PNT as my Pibdie Lite in «ive wat 
\ P ; 
a Rance 4 ; im 
‘ta } tay pall | ‘ie ® Ps . "i? Ce al 
" ‘ ba 7 A, “4 cad f iad ' » fh Pe ae 
7 én + nm 
tw a) : ¥ eA 7 
. 7 J of i A ite ; 
a rs : 
~ N ¢ 
¢ rh ee ! : jay? 7 
‘ , vias 
LP we eee wy ait 7 ? ba yy: ey 
y (Ts, : ‘ ~ ' ffl 
‘ i. re : - * . » Feiriy 
oe. ie 4 ; + ¢ i! J : ed 
| , MMe 2 VUsyie J - : bk ‘ rue Ves 
ie ' 4 ; 
\ 


4 
~~ oe mt 
migears ee davies mars tae 


: >. Vv é =| 
: ’ : a; : ieies ary IO NIDA Ae’ Sl ~~ it 
* _ ; ‘ 7 - 

x 4 Rag + ss 

as , - ; ’ Pa 


IV. 
DEED Ore C H RT ST. 


TRUTH so essential as the Supreme Deity of 

Christ must be, relating, as it does, to the nature 
of God and the highest interests of man, it is natural 
to suppose must lie upon the surface of Revelation, and 
be easily recognized by the common mind. 

The doctrine of the Trinity, we can readily perceive, 
need not, as a doctrine, be propounded in the same way ; 
for there may not be the same practical necessity for 
being able to resolve certain facts into a theory, which 
there is to know the facts in order to apply them toa 
practical use. This knowledge will promote one’s per- 
sonal piety, and greatly enlarge his conceptions of God 
and of his moral government, provided he will confine 
himself to the exercise of simple faith in the mystery 
without venturing into speculations. For we are so 
constituted that if the veil be lifted, or if speculation 
seems to make it transparent, the objects which it was 
intended to conceal will excite our curiosity to intrude 
into the things which we have not seen. Without pre- 
suming, therefore, to sit in judgment on the proper mode 


of giving us a revelation concerning God, we can see 
7 


74. EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


that there may be wisdom in not making prominent any 
theoretical statements concerning the nature of the God- 
head. The manifestations which are made of God in 
acts, names, attributes, and worship, appearing in natural 
connection with his providence and government, and by 
the unfolding of his plans with relation to us, are easily 
understood ; at the same time it may be wise and benevo- 
lent to keep back the enunciation of any theory in con- 
nection with the subject. This seems to be the method 
chosen by the Author of divine revelation. He places 
before us the elementary truths or. phenomena, without 
theorizing about them; yet out of these we may, nev- 
ertheless, derive a scientific statement, which will be 
convenient and useful. For example: Suppose that a 
believer in the Supreme Deity of Christ, and of the 
Holy Spirit, is charged with worshipping Three Gods. 
He will find it convenient, in such a case, to propound 
the doctrine of the Trinity as his chosen alternative to 
Tritheism. He will say, ‘I do believe in the Supreme, 
equal Deity of the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
Ghost; but I also believe them to be one God. Here 
I pause. Ido not believe them to be One in the same 
sense in which they are Three, nor to be Three in the 
same sense in which they are One. But knowing that 
there can be but one living and true God, and finding 
that there are Three who have divine names, works, attri- 
butes, and worship, I am forced to admit the idea of 
threefoldness in the divine nature.’ This is the doctrine 
of the Trinity. 


DEITY OF CHRIST. (fi 


It is evident that the propriety of this whole con- 
clusion depends upon the proof which there is that there 
are Three who are thus equally divine. This is now to 
be the subject of our inquiry. We begin with examining 
the proofs of the Supreme Deity of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

It will be important, at the outset, to see if we have 
definite and well-grounded views upon the subject of 
Christ’s human nature. We shall soon see the bearing 
of this upon the subject of his other nature — provided 
it shall appear that he has another. 

THe Human Nature or Curist.— He was, in all 
respects, a man, like us, except sin. We fail to find 
in him an appropriate example, if he were a being of 
another order, instead of possessmg a human soul ina 
human body. So early as when John wrote his Epistles 
there were those who denied that Christ really had a 
human body, declaring, on the contrary, that he was a 
phantasm. Of course every thing relating to his exam- 
ple, his sympathy with us from similarity of experience, 
would be destroyed if this were true. ‘The Apostle John 
meets this error in the first verse of his first Epistle, 
declaring that Christians had had the evidence of their 
senses with regard to the person of Christ: — “ That 
which was from the beginning, which we have heard, 
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have 
‘looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word 
of life — declare we unto you.”’ 


He hungered, he ate, he was athirst, he drank, he was 


76 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


weary, he slept, he suffered bodily pain; his sweat was, 
as it were, drops of blood fallmg from him; and he shed 
blood. He died, was buried, rose again. ‘* Behold,” 
said he, “*my hands and my feet; handle me and see, 
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” 
“Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and 
reach hither thy hand, and thrust it mto my side, and be 
not faithless, but believing.” ‘And they gave him a 
piece of broiled fish and of a honeycomb; and he took 
it and did eat. before them.”’ 

But he also had a proper human soul. This has been 
denied by those who have believed that his human body 
was inhabited by some supernatural being, or by the 
Deity without a human mind. If this were so, it would 
separate him entirely from us, and prevent us from feel- 
ing that he was “made like unto his brethren.” We, 
therefore, look with interest for the proofs that he hada 
human soul. 

He “increased in wisdom as well as in stature.” 
He prayed; he had limited knowledge ; he ** was tempted 
in all points as we are;’’ and temptation implies lim- 
ited powers and faculties. 

All this is as essential to a proper idea of Christ 
Jesus as his Godhead. We insist on his complete 
human nature, with its limitations, and dependence, 
and susceptibilities to temptation and suffering. We are 
not driven to an admission of his human nature by 
proofs which seem to be inconsistent with the idea of 


his Godhead. We value those proofs of his manhood 


DEITY OF CHRIST. Tah 


no less truly than we value the proofs of his Deity. 
What were his Godhead without his humanity? It 
would be merely God in a body, with no community 
of human interest to draw and to unite us one to the 
other. Every thing which can be asserted or claimed 
respecting the man Christ Jesus, we insist upon and 
earnestly maintain. The manhood of Christ is not for 
others to assert, while we defend his Godhead; his 
true manhood is essential to our idea of Him as Medi- 
ator, no less than his Godhead. Such passages as these 
confirm all which has now been said: ‘* Wherefore 
in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his 
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High 
Priest in things pertaining to God.” ‘ Forasmuch then 
as the children are flesh and blood, he also himself 
likewise took part of the same.” ‘For verily he 
took not on him the nature of angels, but he took 
on him the seed of Abraham.” ‘“ For in that he him- 
self hath suffered, being tempted, he is able also to 


succor them that are tempted.” 


But we come now to other declarations in the Bible 
concerning Christ. | 

His Pre-existence. The proof that He existed be- 
fore He came on earth, is to be found in such passages 
as these : 

‘‘ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and 


he saw it and was glad. 
7% 


78 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


‘“Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet 
fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? 

“‘ Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto 
you, Before Abraham was, I am.”’ 

The words, *“‘ my day,” of course refer to the Saviour’s 
life on earth, and to his kingdom. Abraham, He says, 
had joy in the clear, full foresight of “my day.” But 
with their oblique way of viewing his declarations, the 
Jews sought to make Him assert, in these words, that 
his day and that of Abraham were contemporaneous. 
Christ took advantage of their misconstruction of his 
words, and He said, *“* Before Abraham was, I am.” 
It was not a direct answer to their cavil, but an as- 
sertion of a higher truth still than that which first pro- 
voked them. ‘ You are offended at the idea of Abra- 
ham taking pleasure in the full vision of my coming 
and kingdom. I can tell you that which will surprise 
you more than this: I am before Abraham.’ ‘The 
use of the present tense here is wonderful. It destroys 
at once the possibility of that rendering which some 
would give to the passage —‘ Before Abraham was, 
I existed in the divine purpose;’ a truism indeed, and 
without point in this connection ; for this being equally 
true of many other things, it could not have provoked 
the Jews to take up stones to cast at Him. “I am, 
before Abraham was.” Verbal inspiration, we may say, 
has an illustration here. Are we not compelled by the 


passage to admit that Christ here said that of himself 


DEITY OF CHRIST. . 79 


which we cannot: explain if he had no existence pre- 
vious to his life on earth ?». The same remarkable use 
of the present tense, when referring to His preéxist- 
ence, occurs in these words of Christ: *“* And no man 
hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down 
from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”’ 

When, or in what manner, Christ came down from 
heaven, we cannot explain if we do not adopt the 
belief that He had two natures in one person, and 
that things are said by Him of himself which are true 
of only one of those natures. This remark applies 
with force to that phrase — ‘the Son of man which 
is in heaven.”’ Omnipresence is intimated here. The 
words are among those incidental proofs of divine attri- 
butes in Christ which have no less power than some 
proofs which are more direct and obvious as to their 
design. 

“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with the 
glory which I had with thee before the world was.” 
No serious attempt, it is believed, has been made to 
set aside the force of this passage, except by the asser- 
tion that ‘the glory’’ here spoken of is that which God 
purposed, ‘* before the world was,” to bestow on Christ, 
so that Christ was able to say of it, while yet future, 
‘I had it with thee before the world was.’ By this 
mode of interpretation we could destroy a large part 
of the titles to real estate, and to every kind of prop- 
erty, showing, for example, that as to the property which 


a man claims to have had, with another, previous to a 


80 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


certain date, he means only to say that it was the inten- 
tion of the other to give or to bequeath it to him at a 
future time. The passage quoted, if understood accord- 
ing to the common interpretation, is full of sublimity — 
the man Christ Jesus referrmg to a preéxistent union 
between the Father and himself in glory, though * Beth- 
lehem”’ and ‘the days of Herod the kmg” were the 
place and date of his birth. ‘Truly his name is ‘“ Won- 
derful.”’ 

The following passages may be cited without com- 
ment, after what has been said: 

‘¢ What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up 
where he was before ? ”’ 

‘¢ 7] came down from heaven not to do mine own will, 
but the will of him that sent me.” 

And to conclude with a passage with which we might 
properly have begun, but which is still reserved for more 
extended comment in another place,—‘ In the begin- 
ning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and 
the Word was God. The same was in the beginning 
with God.” Here again it is necessary to resort to 
the vague notion of futurity and divine purpose, if one 
rejects the literal idea that Christ did actually exist in 
the beginning. 

CREATION IS ASCRIBED TO Curist.— The following 
passages on this point are here presented connectedly, 
with a view to some general remarks upon them as a 
class of proofs. 


Speaking of “the Word,” John says: ‘ All things 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 81 


were made by him,”’ —and then, to strengthen the asser- 
tion, it is repeated in a negative form— ‘and without 
him was not any thing made that was made.” ‘In him 
was life.” ‘¢ For by him were all things created, that are 
in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, 
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, 
or powers; all things were created by him, and for 
him: and he is before all things, and by him all things 
consist.’’ 

“And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the 
foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works 
of thine hands.”’ 

God is known to us first of all as Creator, Gen. i. 1. 
Supreme Deity of course is referred to in that verse. 
Did He create by a substitute? Was a delegated crea- 
ture acting for Him? Let us try to think of Milton | 
creating Paradise Lost by a substitute, Shakespeare cre- 
ating ‘“‘ Hamlet” and the ‘ Tempest” by a substitute, 
Michael Angelo deputing a great artist to produce the 
Church of St. Peter’s in any such way that it could 
be said that this artist was its author. In St. Paul’s 
Church, London, one reads the inscription referring to 
Sir Christopher Wren: “Si monumentum requiris, cir- 
cumspice,’ —‘‘If you inquire for his monument look , 
about you.” ‘This great man did not depute his crea- 
tive power to another. — Now in the Bible there is no 
distinction made between the masonry of creation and 
its conception. “He that built all things is God.” 
Who was it that ‘spake and it was done?” Who 


82 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


‘‘commanded and it stood fast’? If the preéxistent 
Word did all this, what was left for God to do, unless 
“the Word was God’’ ? 

It is sometimes attempted to show that if Christ. did 
create all things, God empowered Him to do so, leaving 
Him still a creature, though inconceivably great. But 
God asserts that the act of creating is his prerogative : 
‘“‘T am the Lord that maketh all things, that stretcheth 
forth the heavens alone ; that spreadeth abroad the earth 
by myself.’ If Christ made ‘thrones, dominions, prin- 
cipalities, and powers” (meaning the different orders 
of the heavenly world), He is, of course, their God ; 
for He who made us is God to us, let who will be God 
to Him. 

It is the constant representation of the Bible, in speak- 
ing of Christ as the author of creation, that the God- 
head was creating by Jesus Christ in his preéxistent 
nature. This isa strong point in the argument for the 
Deity of Christ; for if, instead of investing Him with 
creative powers and deputing the work of creation to 
Him as a subordinate work, in which it was not neces- 
sary for the Godhead to be employed, the Godhead 
was as really occupied in the work as the Son, while 
He officially had a chief place in the transaction, it shows 
that He is in full communion with the Godhead, coép- 
erating, and doing that which the Godhead must also 
employ itself to accomplish. All those passages, there- 
fore, which speak of God as creating all things by Jesus 
Christ, instead of showing Christ’s inferiority, illustrate 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 83 


his Deity; for they show Him to be capable of asso- 
ciation and codperation with Deity m things which God 
claims as his prerogative. 

OMNIPRESENCE AND OMNISCIENCE BELONG To CHRIST. 
— The familiar appellation of Christians in the Epis- 
tles, is, ‘‘those who in every place call on the name 
of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is prayer. Christ is 
therefore the proper object of prayer, ‘in every place.” 
Unless he is present, prayer is a mockery of our hopes, 
and even of our understanding. But, that He may hear 
prayer which is addressed to Him in every place, at one 
and the same time, Christ must be omnipresent and 
omniscient. 

‘Where two or three are gathered together in my 
name, there am I in the midst of them.” ‘Lo, I am 
with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” 

*¢ All the churches shall know that I am He which 
searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto 
every one of you according to your works.” 

‘‘' The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit.” 

These things as truly imply omnipresence and om- 
niscience as though they were spoken of God without 
distinction of person. “ 

DivinE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO Curist.— ‘“ Unto 
us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given ; — and his name 
shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, 
the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” 

But it is said, Moses was ‘a god” to Pharaoh. ‘ He 


called them gods unto whom the word of God came ;” 


84 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


and there are “gods many.” But how different is that 
name which is applied to Christ: “ The mighty God.” 
‘“‘ Everlasting Father” is stronger in the original than 
it appears here. It is, literally, “the Father of 
Eternity.”’ In the book of Revelation, Christ appro- 
priates names which are confessedly names of Supreme 
Deity. “I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the 
Last.” These words are four’ times applied to Christ 
in this book. Some Trinitarian writers think that the 
verse (1: 8) is spoken by the Father: “Iam Alpha 
and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the 
Lord [God, Griesbach], which is, and which was, and 
which is to come, the Almighty.” If it be so, we, never- 
theless, find the Saviour, in the eleventh verse, applying 
the terms, ‘‘ the First, and the Last,” to himself. These 
words are used by the Most High, in Isaiah, as his most 
royal prerogative name. With what propriety it can 
be used by a creature in speaking of himself, it were 
vain to inquire. 

“But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, 
is forever and ever.’’ Some would be glad to read it, 
*¢ God is thy throne,” — but this is an obvious violation 
of good taste. “ A throne derives its dignity from the 
character and dominion of the sovereign who sits upon 
it. To call the Eternal Majesty the throne of a crea- 
ture, seems little suitable to the reverence which is 
ever to be maintained towards Him.” ‘In point of 
taste” it ‘could never be adopted by any author 


who had a particle of correct feeling.” The words are 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 85 


a quotation from Ps. xiv. 6, and the alteration of the 
passage as above suggested is not warranted by any rule 
of criticism. 

“Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who 
is over all, God blessed forever.” There is no great proof 
text relating to the Godhead of Christ which has not 
been the subject of controversy. The passage just quoted 
has shared this fate, but the proposition to make of the 
last clause an exclamation, — ‘“‘ God be blessed forever,”’ 
—is wholly gratuitous, an unwarrantable assumption. 

CHRIST RECEIVES DivinE Worsurip.— Baptism, the 
initiatory rite of the true religion, in which the subject 
. of the rite has three names invoked upon him, is an 
implied act of divine worship on the part of those who 
practise it. God, and Christ, and angels, and heaven, 
and earth, may together be appealed to as witnesses of 
a transaction or of an oath, without implying equality 
between them. But when we come to the act of 
initiation into the belief and practice of religion, and 
especially when the formula of initiation is made known, 
and we are commanded to be baptized not simply in the 
name of God, but in three names, we may naturally 
ask, —if this very highest expression of divine worship, 
this primal act of devotement, is not a declaration of 
Supreme, equal Deity in those into whose names we 
are baptized, in what way can the idea of supreme Deity 
be conveyed by any act? It is noticeable that we are 
not baptized in the name of God and of others, but of 


the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
8 


86 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


The name, Gop, does not occur in the formula. The 
benedictions of the New Testament are prayers, and the 
recognition of the Son and of the Spirit, in those acts 
of worship, cannot be explained in consistency with 
original subordination and inferiority on their part. If 
we could be free from the influence of controversy on 
this subject, it is believed that the act of being blessed 
in the names of Three would naturally lead us to ren- 
der to them divine and equal regard. 

“Thomas saith unto him, My Lord and my God.” 
The only way in which the act of worship in this pas- 
sage is set aside is by the supposition, which some have 
made, that Thomas addressed the Saviour by the name 
of Lord, then lifted his eyes and hands to heaven and 
said, My God! This dramatic division of an emotional 
act is unnatural and forced. 

If divine worship was ever performed, or if there are 
ever circumstances which call for it and justify it, the 
dying Stephen performed it when he said, ‘ Lord Jesus, 
recelve my spirit.” 

And when we listen with the beloved John to the 
ascriptions of the heavenly world, we have a testimony, 
which amounts to demonstration, in the divine honors 
paid by saints and angels to the Lamb of God. Asso- 
ciation on the same throne, and the ascription of the 
same prerogatives to God and the Lamb, lead us to 
question ourselves whether we have any such thoughts 
and feelings toward Christ as would make it consistent 


to join in those ascriptions. 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 87 


It is certainly noticeable that the Apostle, in choos- 
ing an appellation for all Christians everywhere, should 
select this: ‘To all who in every place call upon the 
name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” 
For when we read, in Genesis, ‘* Then began men to 
call upon the name of the Lord,’ we know that. the 
worship of the true God is intended. | 

Curist 1s Finan Jupce.—If He is to judge the 
world by a derived power, without inherent capacity for 
such a work, the difficulty in believing that omniscience 
and infinite wisdom, which are divine attributes, are con- 
veyed to Him, would be as great to some minds as the 
belief in his Godhead is to others. 

There is one important sense in which Christ is ‘ ap- 
pointed”? to judge the world, and the reason for it is 
- explicit. “And hath given him authority to execute 
judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” The 
word, ‘** because,” here refers to the word “ given.” The 
idea is not merely, He is to judge because He is man, 
but, as man, it was necessary for Him to receive.authority 
to which even his association with the Word did not 
of itself entitle him. This brings to view the subordina- 
tion of the complex being, Jesus Christ, God, and man, 
to which further reference will be made hereafter, when 
it will appear that the union of a created nature with 
the divine in the one person of Jesus Christ, makes him, 
for the time, a subordinate being, and as such he is uni- 
formly represented. On account of the adaptedness of 


the complex being, Jesus Christ, man and God, to be 


88 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


the judge of men, it is believed that the passage just 
quoted refers to this as the ground of his appointment 
to be our Judge. No doubt there is not only adapted- 
ness, but design, in this arrangement,—to make Him 
our Judge who took on Him our nature, and whose 
sympathies with man will give infinite force to his judg- 
ment of us; but the ‘ giving authority,’ we suppose, was 
necessary, because manhood was associated with Deity in 
his person. 

If Christ be the proper object of prayer, if He is to be 
the Judge of the world, and if ‘ Deity’ be not then recog- 
nized, and its fulness is not in Him, we may well ask, 
What is left for God to do? To what region of unap- 
proachable silence, wrapt in the contemplative abstraction 
of the Stoic’s God, has He retired? What prerogative 
of Deity is left, if a derived being is judge of the human 
race ? , 

SABELLIANISM. — Sabellius explains all these mysteries 
by saying that there is no personal distinction of Father 
and Son in the Godhead, but that the Father acts in 
and through the human nature of Jesus, who is mere 
man. 

This is positively denied by the Apostle John. ‘ The 
Word was with God, and the Word was God.” One 
cannot be “with” himself. This simple passage is a 
confutation of Sabellianism, establishing the doctrine of 
a personal distinction in the Godhead. The idea is 
repeated: “the same was in the beginning with God.” 


Moreover, do we not hear the two addressing one the 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 89 


other? “ And now, O Father, glorify thou me with the 
glory which I had with thee before the world was,’? — 
in which that beautiful law is seen which we are con- 
scious of as immortal yet mortal beings, by which we 
continually say things of ourselves and to one another 
which are true of only one part of that being, J. This 
appears again in the address of the Father to the Son: 
‘*But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is 
forever and ever.”’ And again, ‘* Thou, Lord, in the 
beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and 
the heavens are the works of thine hands.” 

To all this it will be said, Then it follows that there are 
‘“ Two” in the Godhead. — Yes, there are ‘ Three.” — 
Three — what ?— We infer from the revealed statements 
of the New Testament that in the Godhead there are 
Three who may properly use the personal pronouns, I, 
Thou, and He, in addressing, or in speaking of, one 
another. 

Then there must be three consciousnesses — three 
wills ;— if so, how can there be one God ? 

A witness is not properly held to explain the things 
of which he testifies. We have only set forth the 
declarations of the Bible. This is that of which the 
Apostle speaks: ‘“ And without controversy, great is 
the mystery of godliness.”” We venture no explanation. 
There is no similitude with which we can compare it. 
He who dares to name any thing in the heavens or 
earth as bearing any resemblance to this mystery, steps 


into a depth where reason is soon drowned. But this 
Bx 


90 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


part of the subject has been sufficiently remarked upon 
in the lecture on the ‘Trinity. 

THE Saviour’s supPosED CONFESSION OF INFERI- 
oriry.—It has been stated in the preceding pages 
that the union of a created nature with the Word 
reduces the complex being to a subordinate condi- 
tion. 

Let us suppose that a complete human nature is taken 
into personal union with the divine nature, both of them 
to retain their identity. 

The human nature will still be conscious of limited 
knowledge, of finite faculties, both of body and mind, — 
of weariness, and hunger, and thirst; it will feel depend 
ence, which will express itself in prayer. 

If the object in the union between the two natures, 
as to its effect on us, is mediatorial, drawing us to God, 
the predominating impression must be made by the 
human nature. Hence it is said—there is ** one Medi- 
ator, the man Christ Jesus.”’ For, if the divine nature 
should chiefly manifest itself, it would have the effect 
which the top of Sinai had on the elders of Israel. The 
human nature must guard us against those flashes of 
the superior nature which would terrify and repel us. 

Subordination in the one person with the two natures, 
therefore, being the object of the incarnation, we must 
look for manifestations appropriate to the subordinate 
condition. There are senses in which the whole com- 
plex person, divine and human, can say things of itself 


which, originally, are true of one nature only, in that 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 91 


person, but which are also true of Him in his whole 
compound existence. All those declarations, on his part, 
of inferiority, are instances of most unwarrantable egotism, 
they are presumption, unless this be true. For, we can- 
not think of one who is a mere created being, however 
exalted, daring to bring himself and God into compar- 
ison, and saying, ‘* My Father is greater than I.”’ Those 
words are among the strongest presumptive evidences of 
a divine nature in Christ, of a nature clad in human flesh 
and subordinated, so as to need assertions of its association 
with the Godhead in order to excite our confidence and 
trust. 

We have already considered the necessity of the Mes- 
siah’s receiving ‘authority to execute judgment’ in 
consequence of his being man. It is not for us to demur 
at this arrangement. We find it expressly declared ; 
and we might well consider which is the greater ditfi- 
culty of the two,—to believe that a divine and human 
being can act subordinately, or, that a mere human being, 
or one less than omniscient, can judge the universal 
race of men, search the heart, try the reins, and give 
to every man according to his works. 

But it was necessary that the human part in the 
Saviour should exert its influence upon us to a degree 
which would be a veil over the divine attributes with- 
out wholly concealing them. If we accept this, we 
shall be furnished with an answer to the objection that 
we seem to evade the arguments against the Deity of 


Christ, derived from human acts, and declarations of 


92 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


inferiority on his part, by referring those things to his 
human nature. For why should we not do so? If He 
be, as we say, two natures in one person, and those 
two natures act and speak in ways appropriate to them, 
of course some things must be said and done by one 
nature, and must be true of one nature, which can be 
explained only in that way. We need this privilege 
as much in accounting for things in Christ which imply 
supreme Deity, as well as those which prove his human 
nature to be unmingled with the Godhead. We there- 
fore are at no loss to understand his complaint when 
crucified, “* My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
me!” If he be completely, and without confusion of 
attributes, a man, we understand this. If He be also 
omnipresent, we understand Him when He says, ‘ And 
no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came 
down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in 
heaven.” 

But into the connection and the fellowship of the 
Three we do not enter, even in fancy; we only walk 
thoughtfully on the shore of this ocean, and gather 


such things as come to land. 


THE word “Trinity.” —There is no such word 
in the Bible as “Unity,” nor ‘ Omniscience,’’ nor 
‘“‘ Perseverance,” nor ‘* Public Worship,” nor “ Installa- 
tion,’ nor a score of other words and conventional 
terms to express things which are nevertheless conveyed 
to us in the Bible. 


a) Lae 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 93 


Some who are dissatisfied with their religious condition, 
and who seek further light with regard to evangelical 
doctrines, begin at once with attempts to comprehend 
the doctrine of the Trinity. They search the Bible 
for its proofs; they read books of controversy; they 
have an impression that it is required of them to believe 
that Three can be One and One Three, and that this 
is in some way necessarily connected with their salvation. 

Such is not the proper way of approaching this sub- 
ject. The only thing for us sinners to learn at first, 
is, what way God has appointed for the pardon of sin. 
If God is at peace with us, all is well; but the Bible 
nowhere enjoins that in order to this we must believe a 
theorem relating to the Divine existence. We shall 
certainly come to believe it, in consequence of believing 
other things; but we are not to regard it as preliminary 
to our acceptance with God. 

One who seeks to know what he must do to be 
saved, soon finds that the greatest prominence is given 
in the Bible to the sufferings and death of Christ, as 
the ground of pardon. He perceives that we, as sin- 
ners, are declared to be without help or hope; “for 
by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.” If 
obedience, past, present, and future, is not the ground 
of acceptance with God; if regrets, mental anguish, 
and even repentance and good purposes, are not suffi- 
cient to reconcile us with God, how can God be just 
and justify a sinner? The answer appears, in one form 


or another, on every page of the New Testament. “ Be- 


94 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


hold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of 
the world.” ‘God so loved the world that he gave 
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him 
should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ ‘* Who 
his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree.”’ 
“When we were yet without strength, in due time 
Christ died for the ungodly.” ‘ He that believeth on 
the Son hath everlasting life.” ‘To him that worketh 
not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, 
his faith is counted for righteousness.” ‘Thou wast 
slain, and hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood.” 

Such passages, representing the general tenor of Scrip- 
ture on this subject, make him feel that Jesus Christ, 
by his sufferings and death, is a substitute for him — 
the righteousness of Christ being appointed for his justi- 
fication, the penalty of the law of God being satisfied 
by his cross, and provision being made for the resto- 
ration of the soul to holiness by the Redeemer’s media- 
tion. 

In the humbled and submissive state of mind which 
now ensues, one is ready to receive any thing which 
is clearly revealed; and not only so, he is now predis- 
posed to have exalted views and feelings with regard 
to the Saviour of the world. For he has begun to 
look to Him for salvation; he finds himself praying to 
Him, and that before he had settled in his own mind the 
consistency of doing so. He prays to Christ, he com- 
mits his soul to Him, to be saved. And now the decla- 


rations of the Bible concerning the Godhead of Christ 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 95 


are received without cavil. Indeed they are welcomed 
as a support to that all-important step which the soul 
has felt compelled to take, in its extremity, under the 
consciousness of sin. We must not make our feelings 
a rule for revelation; but yet the Bible is adapted to 
Christian experience, was made to develop and sustain 
it, and those who judge the Bible by their natural 
instincts should not object if we judge of it also by our 
experience and knowledge of our spiritual necessities. 
Straightway, passages of Scripture which declare the 
supreme Deity of our Lord appear to be luminous, and 
they crowd thick and fast upon the attention, till, ere 
he is aware, the believer finds himself established in the 
practice of giving divine worship to his Redeemer. 

Ask him now as to the consistency of having two 
divine objects of worship, and how he can defend ,him- 
self against the charge of idolatry. He will say that he 
has not speculated on the subject, that his heart has run 
ahead of his logic, that he finds divine names, works, 
attributes, and worship given to Christ and to the 
Father, and that he is content to do the same. ‘ Then,” 
you say to him, ‘“‘ you have come to believe in the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, the ‘dogma’ which used to offend 
you, and which you so long declared to be ‘an inven- 
tion of the fourth century,’ and nowhere revealed in 
the Bible.” ‘It is even so,” he will reply, “ but I had 
little expectation of arriving at a belief in the doctrine 
of the Trinity when I began; all that I sought for was 
to get my sins forgiven, and my heart changed, through 


96 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


a divine Redeemer, and a divine Sanctifier, in whose 
names, with that of the Father, I have been baptized ; 
but as to being able to explain the consistency of ‘Three 
in One and One in Three, I am as much in the dark 
as ever, knowing only this, that the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost, are each represented to me with 
divine attributes, and still that there is one only living 
and true God.” 

It would seem that any one who is at all candid 
would agree in this, that if it could but be true that 
we have such a Saviour as we have now set forth, God 
made flesh, a complete, perfect man, made like unto 
his brethren, who, at the same time that he is God, has 
all the sympathies of man,—a personal friend, touched 
with the feeling of our infirmities, — and yet omnipresent, 
so that we can always have immediate access to Him, 
and omnipotent, so that He is able to save to the utter- 
most, it would be a provision wonderfully adapted to 
our wants, to be received with thankfulness and _ praise. 

Viewing the subject in the light of reason alone, we 
find it easier to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, 
than to explain away the numerous passages which ascribe 
divine attributes to Christ. In adopting the doctrine of 
the Trinity, we admit a truth which lies beyond the limits 
of our knowledge, and we feel absolved from any respon- 
sibility of adjusting it to what we call reason. But that 
a mere creature should be said to have divine attributes, 
names, works, and worship, is something which lies within 


the province of our minds; it contradicts all that we have 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 97 


otherwise learned; but in order to decide that there can 
be no plurality in unity in the divine nature, we must 
have studied beyond any branches of knowledge which we 
have yet learned. At the same time it does not contradict 
previous experience, like the ascription of divine attributes 
to a creature. Jor we know that unity is so far from 
being inconsistent with plurality, that it frequently implies 
it. Hor example, if we speak of the unity of a discourse, it 
implies parts. We never speak of the unity of a thought. 
Unity of effort always implies combination; indeed we 
ourselves are instances of plurality in unity. Until one 
can explain the philosophy of his bodily motions, and how 
spirit can vitalize matter, and be practically one with it, a 
becoming modesty will lead him to be silent with regard 
to the mysteries of the divine nature. 

We are not to feel it necessary that we should place 
Christ between us and the Father, and pray Christ to 
pray the Father. Praying through Christ does not thus 
mean placing them in a line and passing through one to 
the other. Praying through Christ means, first of all, 
praying with reference to his meritorious work; asking 
for blessings on the ground of his sufferings and death. 
Still, in great distress, or in conscious weakness and 
unworthiness, when the thought of the Infinite God 
oppresses the mind, it is a relief, and it is no doubt in 
accordance with one great object in the incarnation, thus 
to supplicate Christ as literally, and in person, mediating 
between us and God. When we pray specially to Christ, 


or to the Holy Spirit, as long as we feel that the supply 
9 


98 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


of our wants is peculiarly within the province of the 
divine offices ascribed severally to them, we but fulfil the 
benevolent intention in revealing them to us as objects of 
faith and love. 

This, however, is made the subject of much cavil. It 
is said by some who do not consider the explanations just 
made, ** You pray to one that he will pray to another to 
send a third ;”” —in all which, however, there is not the 
least practical difficulty. But in order to understand it, 
there must have been a Christian experience on the sub- 
ject. The Father is represented as occupying a supreme 
place and relation, which is not at all subordinated ; but 
the Son is made subordinate “for the suffering of 
death,”’ and the Holy Spirit acts in subordination to the 
two, and yet possesses all divine attributes, as we shall 
proceed to consider ;.and we can therefore see that it is 
consistent with divine attributes in the Three that the 
Saviour should say, “I will pray the Father, and He 
shall give you another Comforter.” 

We only wonder that so much is plain on this myste- 
rious subject. The purpose of the Bible does not seem to 
be to make this subject understood by us, but to reveal 
the way to be saved ; in doing which the Godhead of the 
Son and of the Holy Ghost comes to view, not for the 
purpose of disclosing that mystery, but to show us the 
way to be saved. No more appears to be revealed than 
is necessary to lay the foundation for faith in the appointed 
method of salvation; but even these things “ the angels 


deyre to look into.’’ 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 99 


** But is not the Lord’s prayer an all-sufficient guide 
to devotion, both as to manner and spirit?”” We may 
reply, How did dying Stephen pray? How do the 
redeemed in heaven worship? The sermon on _ the 
Mount cannot be superseded, nor the Lord’s prayer be 
forgotten, but Christ said to his disciples, ‘I have many 
things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 
Howbeit, when he the Spirit of Truth, is come, he 
shall lead you unto all truth.” ‘ He shall glorify me; 
for he shall take the things which are mine. and shall 


show them unto you.”’ 


No one part of the teachings 
of Christ is intended to disclose a whole system. The 
parable of the prodigal son says nothing about the doc- 
trine of the resurrection; and the parable of the Good 
Samaritan makes no allusion to the Lord’s Supper. 
Progress in the development of the Christian religion 
is implied by Christ in several passages in his last dis- 
course to his disciples. 

“But how could Christ be ignorant and yet omni- 
scient at the same time?” 

We answer, He sat, wearied and thirsty, on a well; 
and yet, ‘* before Him shall be gathered all nations.’’ He 
slept on a pillow in a ship, and then stood on the deck 
and said to the winds and waves, Peace, be still. He 
constantly said and did things as man, and then as 
God. There is infinite beauty to us in this, and no 
difficulty, because we accept the doctrine of his having 
‘‘a true body and a reasonable soul,’’ which were not 


mingled with the indwelling Word. 


100 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


“But, if this subject be so important, why does it 
need so much discussion and enforcement?” It is owing 
to our unbelief. Why should we need any further argu- 
ment to prove that Christ is God, after reading the first 
verses of John’s Gospel ? 

‘But how easy it would have been to have prevented 
all doubt and difficulty on this subject by a simple 
declaration, on the part of Christ, that there are three 
persons in one God.” 

There would probably have been as much discussion 
and as much unbelief then as now. Belief is not in 
proportion to evidence, where the feelings are enlisted. 
After seeing Christ open the eyes of one born blind, the 
Jews came and said, ‘“* How long dost thou make us 
to doubt ? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.” The 
objection to the Deity of Christ lies in the human heart ; 
for we always see that when one is convinced of his lost 
state as a sinner, he accepts Christ as an atoning Say- 
iour, and then he accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, 
without being any better able to explain it than before. 


V. 


ee Pelayo Oe CR LSE 
CONTINUED. 


3 * 


7 ia 1 7 " 
‘ t ™% Pes ) 
‘ } 
? 4 
; = 7 7 a - . 
r Loos ee Peer 
«@? 
' P i. = 1 y + 
7.) 4 . g = baa 
4 h € os 
‘ os it : 7 » 
y 3 1 . ’ F A > cy , oe * 7 
Ye 4 7 ‘ 8 ‘ 


* ; ; 
it 
. ~~ 
4 
as . rr ae 
ae R ' a 
, * a ow on 
“ti @ 
7 
Ant 
. & A 
7 nN 
" 
’ 
‘ t “4 ‘ 
ei} - - 
‘ . id 
ie ‘ 
é 






a Ho i hr 1g | 
i . icine ith 


oA ‘s " 
} . : 
Ry é ‘v. ¢ aa! gas i. ad *i¥) itu #4 9 i2: 
* “+ 
, v 
rs ie dee re ee ee ae ie rk : = 


‘ Ae : P 5 me 9 a 
‘ * TUR rhe) ee hs [we . a f a ins Twig 


RIO Paci halls 3 8s ayo Soe mate 
alanis ta Fiabe wee ring 
es aa est ees ee, jr sath . 
7 oe 9%: aye Sis Mae iui ‘wih * 
; tien ae Cee Hoigat eh dias an 


"vy 2 4 e . - - va Sie j 7 Ds 
: ; an no - Fo a ne md ‘ 
7 . 3 : A ( Bn fay , i a 
j A fl a, ahh “ae Tia 
7 : ieee 4 Ln 7 Peat . ; 
i ‘ 7 ae hie i awe > aa’ 
‘ here . fy ie 1) ae . y 7 ? 
a) - — a - Ce omer _ * Pe safe 7 ‘ nes 7 
[ya ans | n '% 7 ae Sy Pe ~ ve a 
4 Le se 
5 : 


Vs; 


DL tey. ,O.k. Cin RIS: OC on uN ihs Di 


RECAPITULATION. —EXPLANATIONS. 


HERE are three things which we find revealed, and 
these make a ‘‘ Doctrine of the Trinity.”’ These are 
the Supreme Deity of Christ, and the Supreme Deity 
of the Holy Ghost, in connection with the Supreme 
Deity of the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity is 
only a statement of the way in which we reconcile these 
three things with the doctrine of One God. If, there- 
fore, we are asked what we mean by this doctrine, we 
say, We find that the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Spirit are revealed to be equal in divine attributes, and 
that they constitute One God. We may adopt this 
inductive mode of statement — reasoning from the phe- 
nomena to the theory; or, we may use the analytical 
mode of statement, and say, We believe that the One 
God has in his nature a threefold distinction, designated 
by the names, Father, Word, and Spirit. 
We shall agree that God alone is the proper judge 
as to the mode in which He will make a revela- 


104 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


tion. Should He reveal an essential truth in parables 
only, to try the faith of men and to develop their secret 
character, this would be in accordance with the avowed 
purpose of the Great Teacher in some of his public 
instructions. 

Now it should be borne in mind that the only essential 
things, so far as we are concerned with them, in the Trin- 
ity, are the equal Deity of Jesus Christ and of the Holy 
Spirit and of the Father. Are these severally made 
plain? If they are, is. there any thing else, in connection 
with them, and with the nature of the Godhead, made 
known to us for the obedience of faith? Do we find 
explanations in the Bible as to the consistency of these 
things with the Unity of God? Or, are certain element- 
ary things made plain, with no attempt to form them 
into a system? ‘The latter would certainly have a paral- 
lelism in the entire absence, in the opening of the Bible 
and elsewhere, of the least attempt to propound a theory 
respecting that great and first truth, the existence of an 
eternal, uncreated God. If God sees fit to adopt this 
indirect method of revealing the truth of his self-existence, 
we are not to wonder if the same method is observed in 
further disclosures relating to his nature. 

Suppose that we should say, ‘“* The doctrine of the 
Copernican system of astronomy is nowhere expressed 
on the firmament. I have searched from pole to pole, 
and the word Copernican is not suggested by star nor 
constellation.”” We reply, Philosophers have gathered 
together the phenomena of the heavens and earth, and 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 105 


we are all as confident that the ‘‘ Copernican ”’ theory is 
true as though the doctrine were printed in stars on the 
sky. 

We are agreed as to the complete Manhood of Christ. 
No human being has all the attributes of man more en 
tirely than Christ. Whatever else Christ is, therefore, 
he is, in all respects, a man, with “a true body and a 
reasonable soul.’ 

Creation is ascribed to Him, and Hternity. 

Names are given to Christ which are the prerogatives 
of Deity. 

He is Omnipresent. He is an object of Divine Wor- 
ship. 

He is the Judge of the. World.— What propriety or 
what necessity there could be in the interposing of a 
creature between us and God, in that hour and in that 
transaction which, of all, seem indispensably to require the 
special presence and immediate agency of the Most High, 
can never be satisfactorily explained. ‘That Christ is to 
be the final Judge, presiding in person in the final trial of 
the race, is as clearly and positively declared as words can 
assert it. We are compelled to believe it; but, unless 
we also believe in the supreme Deity of Christ, He seems 
to be in the way of that supreme honor which we feel 
that we should render to the Father. In this connection 
it will be pertinent to say, that an intelligent friend, who 
had recently become a believer in the evangelical system, 
declared that formerly he ‘never knew what to do with 
Christ.” The Scriptures ‘‘ made too much of Him”’ for 


106 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


his faith. The Saviour was in the way of his rendering 
supreme and undivided homage to the Father. He 
was willing to receive Christ as the messenger of God, as 
a creature, and to give him honor; but when creation 
is ascribed to Him, and eternity, and acts of divine wor- 
ship, and He is declared to be the final Judge, it con- 
stantly interfered with the honor which he supposed be 
longed only to God. | 

One of these theories must inevitably be true, if we 
apply the common rules of interpretation to the declara 
tions of Scripture concerning Christ, namely : — 

1. Christ is either a mere human being in whom Deity 
resides and operates, — which is Sabellianism; or, 2, 
Christ is an exalted superhuman being, with delegated 
power, in connection with human nature, — which is 
Arianism; or, 3. Christ is the Word made flesh, with a 
distinctive personality, having all the attributes of Deity ; 
and since there is but one God, this one God exists 
in a plural manner,—‘‘the Word” being one of the 
coequal ‘“ persons’ (for want of a better and indeed 
of any suitable word) in the Godhead. This is Trini- 
tarlanism. 

But we have already seen that Sabellianism, or the 
theory that Christ is a mere human being, with Deity 
specially residing in. him and operating through him, 
seems to be confuted by the apostle John in the first 
utterances of his Gospel. For, whoever it was that 
dwelt in Christ, it was One who was ‘‘ with God.” “ The 
Word was with God.” If “ with God,” there must, of * 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 107 


necessity, have been a distinction of some kind and 
degree between them. This is fatal to Sabellianism, that 
is, to the idea that Deity inhabited and influenced Christ, 
as He influenced the prophets; or as the sun, or as the 
vegetating earth are inhabited by the power of God. 
Moreover, we hear Christ addressing the Father thus: | 
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with the glory 
which I had with thee before the world was.” It was 
not the Father, then, who inhabited the person of the 
Saviour ; for there is here an appeal to the Father by 
Him who dwells in Christ, — an appeal on the part of the 
whole person, Jesus Christ, human and divine, without 
any distinction. This “person” is subordinated, be- 
cause in part human; the divine nature in Him using the 
human powers and faculties, and addressing the Father 
as the acknowledged, acting, Supreme Deity, to whom 
this complex being, the God-man, was and is, for the 
time, subordinate. Nor is it in conflict with what has 
now been said in opposition to Sabellianism, that Christ 
declares, ‘* The Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the 
works.” For this was addressed to the Jews on their own 
premises, they demanding evidence that Christ was from 
God, and Christ asserting the general truth ‘that the 
Father and He were united in his mission. It was this 
point only which was then in controversy between them, 
— whether He were an authorized messenger from God. 
In declaring this, Christ says things which may imply 
inferiority ; whereas, taken in connection with his sole 


object in saying them, they are assertions of mutual rela- 


108 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


\ 
tionship and inseparableness. ‘‘’The Son can do nothing 
of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,” —this, and 
other passages to the like effect, all assert union of pur- 
pose between himself and the Father, and do not refer at 
all to relative rank. And yet equality with the Father 
is plainly asserted when He says, in this connection, — 
“For what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the 
Son likewise.” 

If Christ were inhabited by Deity, merely, as we use 
the expression, He being conscious of it, as He certainly 
was conscious of being something besides a mere man, his 
prayers, we may conceive, would not have gone out of 
himself; they would have been soliloquies, conferences 
within his own person, and nothing like that which we 
have in the passage where it is said, ‘‘ These words spake 
Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, Father,” 
etc. But it is difficult for many to conceive of any pro- 
priety in his praying to the Father at all, if He himself 
were conscious of being, in one of his two natures, equal 
with God. But this is explained when we consider that, 
to be of any use to us as Mediator, this divine and human 
being must be in a subordinated condition, must act as 
one who, whatever He was originally, “‘ was made flesh 
and dwelt among us.” And as to the incongruity of 
his praying, if divine, we may reply, How is it any more 
congruous for Him, a man, to say, ‘* Before Abraham was 
Iam; — ‘the glory which I had with Thee before the 
world was ;’? —‘‘he that came down from heaven, even 


the Son of man which is in heaven ;’ —‘* what and if 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 109 


ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was 
before ?” 

The favorite theory of those who do not receive the 
supreme Deity of Christ is, that he is a delegated being, 
with power and authority immeasurably above all crea- 
tures in heaven and on earth. 

One thing which is delegated to him, then, is the 
making of all things. But this is the prerogative of God, 
so far as the Bible reveals to us any essential attributes 
of Deity. ‘* Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, and he 
that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord, that 
maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens 
alone ; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” 
Delegated creatorship makes two Gods for us to worship. 
Who made us? The answer of some must be, God dele- 
gated and empowered Jesus Christ to create me. Then 
whom do you worship? ‘The answer, interpreted, would 
be, I worship the Being who employed a creature to 
create me. 

Congress sends an order to an artist in Italy for a 
statue. They give directions as to the model, from what 
portrait the features shall be copied; the costume, the 
attitude, the whole idea in the representation, are pre- 
scribed. We visit the statue when it is completed, and 
ask who made it. It would be disrespectful to us if one 
should say, “The Congress of the United States; the 
artist was only their agent, with delegated power.” But 
the artist chose that marble when it was ‘in the lowest 


parts of the earth,’ and brought the shape and lineaments 
10 


110 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


of the statue into existence, ‘ which in continuance were 
fashioned when as yet there was none of them;’ his 
genius was employed upon it; this work of art is truly his 
creation. Now if the soul be an actual creation, and not 
a mere development of matter, who created it? Not 
merely who superintended the laws of nature to see that 
they gave existence to the soul, — but, Who created the 
soul out of nothing? We read concerning Christ, ‘ By 
him were all things created, both which are in heaven, 
and which are in earth ;’? —‘“ and he is before all things, 
and by him do all things consist.” 

InciDENTAL PRoors oF THE Saviour’s Dertry. — 
Some of these (and they are scattered profusely in the 
Bible) are among the strongest arguments. These few 
will lead the reader to think of others. 

1. “ Took on him the form of a servant.” It is well 
authenticated, to the writer’s personal knowledge, that 
not long since a man heard a fellow-traveller, a Christian, 
talking in his sleep and reasoning as follows: All crea- 
tures are servants of God. The archangel, or, if there 
be a creature above him, he, is still a servant. Now if 
Christ ‘‘ took on him” the form of a servant, it follows 
that he is not a creature; and therefore He is God. 

2. ‘I go to prepare a place for you; and if I go, [will 
come again and receive you to myself, that where I am, 
there ye may be also.” 

To feel the force of this, we have only to imagine 
Elijah saying to the sons of the prophets just before his 


translation, or Paul to the elders of Ephesus, ** Where 





DEITY OF CHRIST. aa 


I am there ye may be also;” implying that heaven 
would consist in being with him. 

3. * Having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, 
which is far better.” We cannot reconcile it with pro- 
priety that the inspired Apostle should make the com- 
pany of a creature synonymous with heaven. 

4. “ Ve believe in God; believe also in me.” This is 
irreverential if there be not an equality between the two. 

5. “ ITand my Father are one.” ‘Of course they were 
one in plan and action, and they were in sympathy with 
each other. If this were all which Christ implied, it was 
only the claim which Christ had continually made, and 
it was no provocation to stone him, any more than were 
the other things which he had just said. But the Jews 
interpreted it as the claim of a man to be equal with 
God. 

6. “Twill not blot out his name out of the book of life.” 
There is here a tone of sovereignty in the disposal of our 
destinies for eternity, which is unsuitable for a creature 
to assume. 

T. “Tf a man love me he will keep my words, and my 
Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make 
our abode with him.” Such association of one’s self with 
God is fearfully arrogant in a creature. 

8. “Glorify me with thine own self.’ We might say 
to him if he were only-a creature, ‘Thou hast asked a 
hard thing.’ In what way God can glorify a creature 
with his ‘ own self,’ no one can explain. The meaning 


appears when Christ adds, 


ity EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


9. “With the glory which I had with thee before the 
world was.” 

10. “Tf ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I said, I 
go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I.” 
Let us suppose Paul telling Timothy, ‘I am now ready 
to be offered ; if you loved me you would rejoice that I am 
going to God; for God is greater than I.’ The simple 
act of comparing himself with God shows that in Christ 
there is proper ground for such comparison, which surely 
cannot be said of a creature. But the Saviour, having 
excited the confidence of his disciples even to the bound 
of adoration, though acting as God-man in subordination 
to the Father, might suitably raise their hopes and joy by 
intimating that this subordination was now to be suc- 
ceeded by his personal appearance before Him, and by 
visible union with Him, to whom in his subordinate capac- 
ity He had taken upon Him “ the form of a servant.” 

11. “ The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit.” If 
such a prayer may be made for one man, it may be for 
many ; and if Christ can be with our spirits, he is omni- 
present. 

12. “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father.’ Some 
say that there is no mystery in Christ’s nature. But 
it seems that God only knows who He is. We are 
told, indeed, that the ‘* Word was God,” yet who but 
God can know this mystery ? | 

13. “ They commended them to the Lord, on whom 
they believed.” This refers to Christ, and it is an act of 
worship. 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 118 


14. “That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be 
glorified in you and ye in him, according to the grace of 
our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Such perfect 
blending of God and Christ is consistent only with the 
idea of their equality. 

15. The last words of the Bible are, “ The grace of 
our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen,’ True, 
these words were written merely at the close of the book 
of Revelation. But still, did not God design that this 
should be the last book of the Bible? 

With such incidental proofs of the Deity of Christ it 
would be easy to fill many pages. — Let us now refer 
again to a class of passages already mentioned which 
are uniformly relied upon as proofs of Christ’s original 
ingeriority to the Father: — ‘I can of mine own self do 
nothing.” ‘ The works which I do, I do not of myself. 
The Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” 
‘¢ The Son can do nothing of himself, but whatsoever he 
‘seeth the Father do.”’ 

It has already been shown, but it will not be super- 
fluous to say again, that these passages merely assert 
union of purpose between Christ and the Father, and 
that they are addressed to the cavil of the Jews that 
Christ was not sent from God. It will be found on 
examination that assertions by the Saviour of his inferior- 
ity were not called for in such connéctions, and that they 
would have been out of place. The claim to be estab- 
lished was, perfect consent and union between the Father 


and the Messiah. These passages establish that claim. 
10* 


114 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


But if there be one passage which, more than another, 
is generally relied on to disprove the Deity of Christ, it 
is this: ‘“*‘ For there is one God, and one Mediator be- 
tween God and man, the man Christ Jesus.’’ 

The argument which this text would logically sug- 
gest, if any, is this, that Christ is not God because He 
is here called :man in distinction from the one God. 
The evident design, it is said, is to make an unquestion- 
able distinction between Deity and that human person, 
Jesus. 

But it bemg supposed that Paul never dreamed that 
Christ was more than human, why should he take such 
pains to assert a palpable truism, namely, that there 
is only one God, and that Christ is only a man, and 
not God, though employed in a mediatorial office? @ 

The passage thus literally taken would prove that 
“the man Christ Jesus” is only a man. Is this the 
opinion of the objector? It would be a rare thing to 
find, even at the present day, a professed Christian who 
believes so little. Hence, the term, ‘the man Christ 
Jesus,’ is used to designate a person, irrespective of the 
nature, or natures, in that person. Though “in the 
beginning with God,” and though He “ was God,” still 
it is proper to speak of Him as “the man Christ Jesus,” 
for such He was, though this was not all; and we have 
seen that He was continually saying things of himself 
which were true of only one of his natures, or which 
could be true only on the supposition that He had more 
natures than one. 


ee rtCTSS—~;C7;73 ; 7; C —— 


DEITY OF GHRIST. | 115 


There is a passage which is an exact parallel to this, 
which, while it makes the same distinction as here, 
between the one God and the Lord Jesus Christ, con- 
tains a perfect proof of his Creatorship. ‘ But to us 
there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, 
and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom 
are all things, and we by him.” Would it make any 
difference in the impression of this passage upon our 
minds if the terms “of whom” and “in Him” were 
applied to Christ, and if the terms “ by whom” and 
“by Him” were applied to God instead of Christ? 
Surely not. If ‘all things” are “by” Jesus Christ, 
“and we by Him,” we cannot distinguish between the 
honor due to Him and to the Father. 

The following questions have been actually put, and in 
a candid manner, and they are worthy of a candid answer. 
“Take the following passage, —‘even as I also over- 
came and am set down with my Father in his throne.’ 
Who says this?—the human nature or the divine? or 
both?” Answer: Both. ‘* How, then, can this com- 
plex being, including one nature that was equal with 
God, own a father?” Answer: It certainly appears to 
be so, in numerous passages. For example: — “and the 
Word was with God, and the Word was God ;”’ —‘“‘ and 
the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we 
beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the 
Father, full of grace and truth.” 

How will the candid inquirer account for this? The 


inspired writer here unquestionably speaks of a complex 


116 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


being, “the Word,” who “was God,” “made flesh,” 
as * the only begotten of the Father.’’ We might repeat 
his own question: Is this said of the human nature, or 
of the divine, or of both? ‘The answer must be, Of 
both. Now; if there be any controversy on the point, it 
must be with the author of the first chapter of John. 
Some explain this by the doctrine of “eternal gener- 


ation,” 


which teaches that from eternity there was that 
in the divine relation between the “ Father”? and * the 
Word” which laid a foundation for the names Father 


and Son—there being “ a derivation,” 


or ‘* procession,” 
which was, however, perfectly consistent with a coéter- 
nity, and in all respects an equality. Hence “the 
Word of God’ could always properly use the term 
‘Father,’ in relation to the Godhead. 

Others are better satisfied with the belief that the 
term “Son” as applied to Christ relates only to his 
Messiahship. ‘I will declare the decree: Thou art 
my Son; this day have I begotten Thee.” They sup- 
pose that it is consistent for the complex being, the 
Word and the man Christ Jesus, to be called ‘the Son 
of God,” and for Him to call God, “ Father,” on the 
principle that things may be said by one having a com- 
pound nature, which are true in reference only to one 
part of that nature. 

Again: “Did Christ ever speak of a double con- 
sciousness ?”’ It appears not; nor did He ever say 
a word about the nature of the mystery which was in 


Him. It is in vain for us to inquire why this was so. 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 117 


We may also wonder, for example, that no more is said 
by the man Christ Jesus, as a son, respecting his mother. 
We find Him continually saying things which imply a 
knowledge on his part of the two natures within him- 
self. “I came down from heaven.” ‘The glory 
which I had with thee before the world was.” ‘Thou 
lovedst me from the foundation of the world.” ‘* Before 
Abraham was, I am.” 

It is asked, ‘If the old theory of the Atonement were 
given up, would not people generally reject the doctrine 
of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ?” 

A large part of those who come to believe in these 
doctrines are led to their belief by first perceiving that 
the atoning blood of Christ is appointed as the only 
ground of pardon. Men generally try every other method 
of being reconciled to God before they embrace this, 
which perfectly humbles pride, and makes the sinner feel 
that his salvation is wholly of grace. His faith in Christ 
as an atoning Saviour leads him to the logical conclusion 
that Christ must be more than a creature in order to 
atone for sin. But the will being subdued, and pride 
being humbled, in accepting pardon through a crucified 
Redeemer, the mind is prepared to receive, without cavil, 
those plain and powerful declarations in the New Testa- 
ment respecting the Deity of Christ. They coincide with 
_ the experience and wants of the soul. But still, as there 
are very many who have no practical faith in the atone- 
ment, and yet are firm believers in the Deity of Christ, 


it cannot properly be said that the belief in the atone- 


118 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


ment is the chief cause of a prevalent belief in the doc- 
trines of the Trinity, and of the Deity of Christ. They 
shine by their own light, though they belong to a con- 
stellation. 

To a sincere inquirer who is troubled with difficulties 
on this subject, the following counsels may be useful: — 

1. Do not hesitate to think of Christ, at any time, 
either as God, or as man, without making up in your 
mind, as it were, the complement of his natures. It is 
exceedingly profitable, at times, to contemplate Him only 
as man; nay, to look into the manger at Bethlehem and 


view Him only asa babe. Cowper says of Him, — 


“ As much when in the manger laid 
Almighty ruler of the sky, 

As when the six days works he made 
Filled all the morning stars with joy.” 


But, without trying to blend the two things as due to 
your reverence for Him, indulge in the contemplation of 
the child Jesus, the man of sorrows, the weary, solitary, 
despised, suffermg man of Nazareth; pray to Him as 
such; take full delight in his being made like unto his 
brethren. ‘Then you may also think of Him, for so He 
is represented in the Bible, as Creator, Omnipotent, 
Omnipresent, Final Judge. Then both of his natures, 
his whole being as God-man, will sometimes appear to 
your thoughts without confusion, blending as they do in 
the New Testament, and as they are represented as doing 


when it is said, by Bishop Heber, — 


DEITY OF CHRIST. 119 


‘“‘ Angels adore Him in slumbers reclining, 


Maker, and Monarch, and Saviour of all.” 


2. Do not perplex yourself with attempts to conceive 
of Three in One. Resort to this doctrine as the way of 
accounting for the things which are said in the Bible 
respecting the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Be not 
afraid of derogating from the honor due to the Son and 
the Spirit by calling the Father, in a preéminent man- 
ner, Gop; for so it is evidently intended that we should 
do, it being necessary that we should at times conceive 
of Deity separated from all subordination. The Father 
occupies that relation to the mind of the worshipper ; we 
may call Him God, at the same time that we may be 
praying to the Saviour and to the Holy Spirit. 

So a star which we sail by, or which is for any reason 
a sign to us, appears to be one object, though we may 
know it to be a triple star, which at times we rejoice to 
view in its multiplicity and harmony ; yet, when it beams 
upon us suddenly as a heavenly body, we are not exer- 
cised with any arithmetical effort before we enjoy the 
sight. Thus the mind and heart may receive the idea 
of God without breaking it up by any recollection of 
plurality ; again, the thought of society in the Godhead 
is a source of inexpressible pleasure ; and again, we find 
ourselves praying exclusively to the Holy Spirit for things 
which are peculiarly appropriate to’ Him, and to the 
Saviour for things which relate especially to Christ ; and 
then to the Father, either as God without distinction of 


120 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


persons, or in view of the paternal character which we 


especially associate with Him. 


All that has been said may well be brought to a con- 
clusion by the help of a figure used by Dr. Owen, in his 
‘‘ Glory of Christ.” In speaking of the passage ‘“* — by 
him (Christ) to reconcile all things unto himself— 
whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven,” 
he represents Christ in his complex natures as a node, 
or knot, which gathers up, unites, and holds together, all 
things in heaven and earth. ‘That in the dispensation 
of the fulness of times he might gather together in one 
all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which 


are on earth, even in him.” 


Wels 


DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 


11 





VI. 
DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 


LL the proofs necessary to establish personality in 
any instance whatever can be brought to prove 
that the Holy Spirit is a person. 

It is a curious and interesting grammatical fact, apart 
from the truth suggested by it, that masculine pronouns 
are employed in connection with the name, Holy Spirit, 
the name itself being neuter. This is an exception to 
the law of language. It is true that we apply masculine 
and feminine pronouns to neuter or inanimate objects in 
a poetical way, calling the sun fim, and a ship her; but 
where there is no opportunity or occasion for such a 
metaphorical use of language, and where usage has not 
affixed a masculine or feminine appellation to a thing, 
the laws of speech forbid the use of masculine or femi- 
nine relatives with a neuter noun. 

It is singular, then, that the neuter name of the Holy 
Spirit should have acquired masculine relatives. It looks 
as though the personality of the Holy Spirit pressed itself 
through the rules of speech, making language conform to 
it. We shall not wonder at this when we have consid- 


124 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


ered the evidences in the Bible that the Holy Spirit is 
a person. We will simply bear in mind that the New 
Testament Greek never speaks of the Holy Spirit as ‘ it,” 
but always as “he.” 

To begin where the Holy Spirit is first spoken of in 


the New Testament, we may observe, 


I. Tuer Horny Sprrir Is DECLARED TO BE THE AU- 
THOR OF CHRIST’S HUMAN NATURE. 

God is the former of our bodies and the Father of our 
spirits; and God was as truly the author of Christ’s 
human nature as of any other nature. Christ addressed 
God always as his Father, without, apparently, any dis- 
tinction in his mind between Him and another person. 

We naturally ask, then, why the Holy Ghost is spe- 
cially declared to be the author of Christ’s human nature ? 
Why is not the name, so appropriate here, of the Father, 
used in such connection? It was said to Mary, ‘ The 
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore that holy thing 
that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 
God.” It is also said that she ‘* was with child of the 
Holy Ghost.” If the Holy Spirit be merely divine 
influence, it cannot be satisfactorily shown why the birth 
of Jesus should not be spoken of as simply the act of 
God. ; 

This, and the grammatical fact just mentioned, are 
certainly suggestive, whether we give much or little 


weight to them as positive arguments. 


-DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 125 
e 


IJ. PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS ASCRIBED TO 
tHE Hoty Spirir. 

He is declared to possess a perfect knowledge of the 
divine nature. He is compared to human consciousness, 
or to the mind of a man taking cognizance of itself. 
‘‘ For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things 
of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man 
save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so know- 
eth no man the things of God save the Spirit of God.” 
“The spirit of man which is in him” is, of course, our 
consciousness, which is but another name for the percep- 
tion of that which passes in one’s own mind. If the 
Holy Spirit be capable of such a knowledge of God as a 
man has of himself, it as truly proves the Holy Spirit to 
be God as one’s own consciousness proves a manto be a 
man. If the Holy Spirit knows God as a man knows 
himself by his consciousness, the Holy Spirit is omni- 
scient. 

All who admit the force of this reasoning must also 
candidly admit that there is a seeming difficulty connected 
with the passage. A man’s consciousness, or the spirit 
of a man, is the man himself, and is nowise distinct 
from him. Hence, it may be said, the Spirit of God is 
nowise distinct from God, but is God himself. To 
this it may be replied, What, then, is the use of the 
comparison? There is no good object answered in 
proving that God knows himself, as man knows himself. 
Two are spoken of in the beginning of this passage, — 


‘¢ He that searcheth the heart knoweth what is the mind 
11* 


126 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


of the Spirit.” There is evidently some kind of distinc- 
tion between these two. Now, ina comparison, it is not 
required that the two things be alike in all points. The 
only point in view with the sacred writer here, is, the 
perfect knowledge which the Spirit has of Him ‘“ that 
searcheth the heart.” ‘This he compares to the perfect 
knowledge which a man has of himself by his conscious- 
ness. It would be illogical to insist that, because, in this 
comparison, the consciousness of a man is only the man 
thinking, so ‘the Spirit searching the deep things of 
God’ is God’s own consciousness. Were it so, the 
amount of the reasoning in this passage would be merely 
this: As man knows himself, so God knows himself ;— 


which is not only useless, but seemingly irreverent. 


Ill. THe Hoty Sprrir 1s THE suCcESSOR OF CHRIST 
IN HIS WORK. 

“It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go 
not away the Comforter will not come unto you; but 
if I depart I will send him unto you.” 

Interpret this as divine influence, and it is incom- 
prehensible. For surely it could not be necessary for 
Christ to depart that ‘divine influence’ might visit the 
souls of the Apostles, and moreover the Saviour’s being 
in the world did not keep divine influence out of it, 
nor would it be increased by his departure. Through- 
out this last discourse of Christ to his disciples, allusion 
is made to some plan and arrangement by which He is 


to go away and be succeeded by another, this succes- 


DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 197 


sor evidently having all the qualities of an intelligent 
being, a person. To fulfil the work of Christ, He must 
needs be divine. 


IV. THe Hoty Sprrir PERFORMS THE ACTIONS OF 
A PERSON. 

He is represented as having planned the Old Testa- 
ment dispensation : ~ the Holy Ghost this signifying, 
that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made 
manifest while as yet the first tabernacle was standing.” 
These words ascribe to Him the arrangement of the 
great typical economy, giving significance to its parts 
as related to future fulfilments, and interpreting them 
to the world by reason of his knowledge of them as 
their projector. 

In accordance with this we find the Holy Spirit 
represented as the author of prophecy. The ancient 
prophets are said to have been “ searching what or what 
manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them 
did signify when it testified beforehand of the sufferings of 
Christ, and the glory that should follow.’ ‘+ Well spake 
the Holy Ghost by the mouth of Esaias.” ‘* Holy men 
of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 
Again: ‘* Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the 
latter times some shall depart from the faith.”” And 
again: ‘* He shall show you things to come.” These are 
the acts of a person. Surely it is as much a person 
who is acting as they are persons who are acted upon, 
in the following words: ‘ Being forbidden of the Holy 


128 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Spirit to preach the word in Asia, they went through 
Mysia, and endeavored to preach the Gospel in Bi- 
thynia; but the Spirit suffered them not.” Again: 
“« The Spirit said to Peter, Behold, three men seek thee. 
Go with them, nothing doubting.” Again: He appoints 
men to office: “The Holy Ghost said, Separate me 
Barnabas and Saul to the work whereunto I have called 
them.” ‘So they, being sent fortA by the Holy Ghost, 
departed unto Seleucia.”’ ‘Take heed to the flock over 
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” He 
is declared to be present with the secret thoughts of 
inspired men: “The Holy Ghost shall teach you in 
that hour what things ye shall say.” ‘* The Comforter, 
which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father shall send 
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring 
all things to your remembrance.” Again: “ Why hath 
Satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost? 
Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” “ Grieve 
not the Holy Spirit of God, by whom ye are sealed unto 
the day of redemption.” 

If the New Testament made common use of personi- 
fications, like the poets or imaginative writers, or even 
like their own contemporary oriental writers, there 
would be some ground to assert that divine influence, 
the power and wisdom of God, were here spoken of as 
a person. But there are no instances in the Evangelists 
and in the Epistles where things are thus personified. — 
But further: 


DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. . 129 


V. Tue Hoty Spirit Is THE AUTHOR OF REGEN- 
ERATION. | 

Everywhere, the renewal and sanctification of the soul 
of man is ascribed to the Holy Spirit as his official work. 
All the exercises of the spiritual mind, the Christian 
graces, every thing, in short, pertaining to the progress 
of the soul in likeness to God, and all the communica- 
tions of God to the soul of man, are declared to be the 
work of the Holy Spirit. Such terms as these will 
readily occur in this connection to every reader of the 
- Bible: “born of the Spirit,” “renewing of the Holy 
Ghost,” ‘sanctification of the Spirit,” “fruits of the 
Spirit,” ‘‘signs and wonders by the power of the Holy 
Ghost,” ‘“‘abound in hope through the power of the 
Holy Ghost.” 


VI. Tue Hoty Sprrir 1s THE ONLY OBJECT OF 
UNPARDONABLE OFFENCE. | 

“¢ Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of 
man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoso shall speak 
against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, 
neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.”’ 

It may well be asked, What conceivable meaning there 
is in this passage, and in others like it, unless personality 
be implied? When it is said that blasphemy against 
“the Son” is pardonable, we recognize “the Son” as a 
person, distinct from the Father; by the same necessity 
we must recognize “the Holy Ghost” as a person, dis- 
tinct from the Son, and from the Father, when the Holy 


130 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Ghost is spoken of as the only object of unpardonable 
offence. 

It cannot be explained why sinning against God is 
pardonable, but that to sin against an attribute, or influ- 
ence, of God, is unpardonable. No one can tell what 
attribute of God, if any, is intended. Would it not have 
been specified? The offence ‘“‘ hath never forgiveness.” 
The divine Lawgiver surely has not left it uncertain what 
the transgression is which is not forgiven, ‘neither in 
this world, nor in that which is to come.” If the “ Holy 
Spirit”? be some attribute of God, and the attribute 1s 
not specified, we may say that the sin itself cannot be 
committed ; ‘‘ for where no law is there is no transgres- 


> where there is no 


sion,’ and certainly there is no “ law’ 
intelligible specification. We must know against whom, 
or against what, we are sinning, in order to be guilty. 
Especially is this true here, for the sin consists in ‘ speak- 
ing against ;””—not in mere mental acts, but in blas- 
pheming some one or some thing by name. What ‘ attri- 
bute’’ of God, then, is it which we must ‘ blaspheme,’ 
before we commit a sin which “ hath never forgiveness ?” 

But all is clear when we understand that the Holy 
Ghost is a person, a divine person, whose particular work 
it is to apply to the soul of man all that the Father and 
the Son, jointly and severally, have done toward his sal- 
vation; that the Holy Spirit is the last of the Three 
blessed Agents, in the appointed order of the redeeming 
work, completing the great design by striving to make 


the influences of heavenly grace efficacious with the indi- 


DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Vell 


vidual. It is easy to see that he who not only resists, but 
by name blasphemes, the Holy Ghost, sins against the 
most concentrated of all the efforts which God proposes 
to make for his salvation. Without presuming to say 
that this, or any thing which may seem equally probable, 
is the reason why the sin against the Holy Ghost is 
unpardonable, we do see that it is a person who is sinned 


against, and not an influence, nor any mere thing. 


VII. WE ARE BAPTIZED AND BLESSED IN THE NAME 
oF THE Hory Spirit. 

To be baptized and blessed in the name of God, of 
Christ, and of an attribute, or influence, of God, is 
unintelligible. If baptism be a divine seal, we are led 
to expect that the names impressed upon us by that 
seal, one of them being divine, will be coéqual. The 
benediction is a prayer; the name of God is confessedly 
invoked in it; if the two other names be finite, let us 
imagine other finite names substituted for them, and men 
to be blessed and to be baptized in the name of the Father 
and of any two of the Apostles, nay, of any two of 
the angels. The name of God and the names of angels, 
God and his people, Christ and his church, God and 
our country, are frequently joined together; men are 
charged, conjured, in the name of God and of the holy 
angels. Paul charges Timothy “ before God and the elect 
angels;”? but when we are baptized, and when divine 
blessings are invoked, “who among the sons of the 
mighty can be likened unto the Lord?” “ Behold he 


132 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


put no trust in his servants, and his angels he charged 
with folly.’ Baptism is the initiatory rite of religion ; 
any thing like vagueness in the formula of that ordi- 


nance seems impossible. 


Nothing can prevail to set aside the proofs that the 
Holy Ghost is a person, except a demonstration that there 
cannot be three persons in the Godhead. The same 
proofs which establish personality in any case, are found 
in connection with the Holy Spirit ; so that we venture 
the assertion that if his being proved to be a person 
would not be followed, inevitably, by his being admitted 
to be a person in the Godhead, men would no more 
question his personality than that of any who are named 
in the Bible. 

The use of the term Holy Spirit, in places where the 
idea of a person is not absolutely necessary, does not 
prove either that the Holy Spirit, as a person, is not 
intended, nor that there is no such divine Person. In 
the Old Testament the personal distinctions in the God- 
head are not expressly referred to with such distinct- 
ness as in the New. 

It is an interesting truth, in connection with this sub- 
ject, that the mystery of the Divine nature has been 
revealed more and more as the work of redemption has 
been unfolded. But, as the Lord Jesus Christ is every- 
where in the Old Testament, so that ‘* testimony concern- 
ing”? Him is the very ‘ spirit of prophecy,” and as He is 
acting and speaking in places where we cannot prove it to 


DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. SS 


be so, we cannot doubt that frequently, where the term 
Holy Spirit in the Old Testament suggested to the Jewish 
mind only the idea of divine influence, the Holy Spirit as 
a Person is intended,— He who was afterward to be 
revealed in the initiatory rite of the Christian dispensa- 
tion as one with the Father and the Son. The veil was 
not yet removed from his personality, nor wholly from 
that of the second Person in the Godhead, though both 
were performing their divine offices in the plan of redemp- 
tion. Let us but suppose that there are Three Persons 
in the Godhead, and that they from the beginning are 
occupied with the work of human salvation. It will 
necessarily follow that from the beginning they were 
severally performing official acts, and therefore that they 
are referred to in the earliest records of the divine trans- 
actions, though for wise purposes they were not then made 
manifest, as they were at a subsequent period in the his- 
tory of redemption. This will, of course, have weight 
only with those who believe in the doctrine of the Trin- — 
ity. It is intended to encourage and confirm their belief 
that the Old Testament, which is full of the Lord Jesus, 
is also pervaded by the third Person in the Godhead, the 
Holy Spirit. Let us not suffer the unbeliever to intimi- 
date us by challenging us to prove that it is the 
Redeemer and the Sanctifier who are intended in cer- 
tain passages of the Old Testament, which we refrain 
from using for proof-texts in arguing with others. Faith 
does not, by any means, despise lexicons and grammars, 


nor logic, but while honoring them, she also remembers 
12 


134 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


these words of Jesus, in his declaration concerning the 
Holy Spirit — “ even the Spirit of truth, whom the world 
cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth 
him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth in you, and shall 
be in you.” When we consult a commentator on such 
a subject as this, it will be well first of all to inquire 
whether he gives evidence of having been himself born 
of the Spirit; for if he “cannot see the kingdom of 
God,”’ how can he lead others into it? ‘The things 
of the Spirit of God” “ are foolishness”? unto him. ‘The 
manner in which the Holy Spirit is presented to our 
minds in the New Testament, accords with the oradual 
manner in which He is made known from the beginning. 
_ It may be said that we are nowhere commanded to 
pray to the Holy Spirit. But if we are baptized in 
his name as in the name of a person, if his blessing is 
invoked whenever the Christian benediction is pronounced, 
if He is the author of regeneration, —to say no more, — 
then worship addressed to Him is as truly warrantable 
as in any case whatever. We cannot prescribe when, 
nor in what manner, nor in what degrees, from time to 
time,’ God shall make his revelations. 

Perhaps we do not find in the Bible an express direc- 
tion to worship Three, because our efforts to fulfil the 
spirit and the letter of so important a prescription would 
be likely to embarrass and confuse us. But suppose, in- 
stead of this, that the supreme Deity of the suffering and 
dying Redeemer is revealed, that the personality and 


Deity of the Holy Spirit are also made known, and that 





DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 135 


we are baptized and blessed in their names, conjointly 
with the name of the Father, while at the same time 
the Father has precedence among the Three ;— it is 
plain that the worship of the Three, being thus left to 
the secret impulses and frames of mind in each believer, 
is more simple, less embarrassed by an effort to connect 
the Three into one object of worship, and is paid in 
proportion to our spiritual exigencies and discoveries of 
the divine character, and its adaptedness to our wants. 
Truly it can be said, as the testimony of believers, that 
they appreciate the wisdom and goodness of God in thus 
leading them on by faith into the green pastures and 
beside the still waters of divine knowledge. 

The Holy Spirit is the object of supreme worship in the 
hymns of the Christian church in all ages. Let us refer 
only to those which are now in common use, and we shall 
see how perfectly adapted the worship of the Holy Spirit 
is to Christian experience. The hymns _ beginning, 
“Come, Holy Spirit, heavenly Dove,” and “Come, 
Holy Spirit, come,” do not excite a thought of idolatrous 
worship. Being told that, when we believed, we were 
‘“‘ sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the 
earnest of our inheritance,”’ the pledge “ of the purchased 
possession,” and reading the words of Christ respecting 
the Comforter, we sing, we pray to Him; though, if chal- 
lenged to produce a text of Scripture commanding us to 
do so, we should be as much at a loss as we should be 
for explicit words of Scripture enjoining the practice of 


family prayer. 


136 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Secret prayer to the Holy Spirit is an indication of 
growing discrimination as to our wants. It shows that 
we make special efforts against particular temptations, 
and for the cultivation of particular Christian graces, 
and it is a proof of special communion and _ fellowship 
between the soul and God. As the only unpardonable 
sin is a sin against the Holy Ghost, we may infer that the 
relations of the Holy Spirit to man are such that the 
more we have of communion and fellowship with Him, 
the more we advance in the divine life. ‘ For as many 
as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons ot 
God.” ‘And hereby we know that he abideth in us, 
by the Spirit which he hath given us.” 

To us as a sinful race, Jesus, the suffering, atoning 
Saviour, is now the most prominent object of faith. We 
acknowledge Him as the procuring cause of pardon and 
salvation. The Father pardons on his account; the 
Holy Spirit comes in consequence of: his death, — (the 
Father sending Him, says Christ, “in my name.”’) But 
how is it in those worlds and among those orders of 
beings who have never sinned? None have returned 
to inform us. We may not do wrong to think that even 
there **the Word” is, in some way, the Revealer of 
Deity, as a word is the exponent of the secret thought. 
But it will help our conceptions with regard to the 
blessed Spirit to think that in those unfallen worlds, if 
such they be, the Holy Spirit may hold relationship to 
the inhabitants, not indeed rendered pathetic as the 


Saviour in his offices as Redeemer is to us, but con- 


DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 137 


nected with their advancement in likeness to God. The 
intended use of such a consideration is merely to make 
us remember that the Holy Spirit, if divine, is not a 
temporary agent, employed only in our world; but that, 
as God the Spirit, He reigns over the wide realms of 
creation, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, 
being the subjects of his varied influence. ‘This serves 
to enhance our sense of obligation to Him as conde- 
scending to these poor, sinful hearts of men, and in our 
being made, as our bodies are said to be, the temples 
of the Holy Ghost. And we may also consider, to our 
great joy, that while the Lamb, who is in the midst of 
the throne, shall forever feed us and lead us to living . 
fountains of waters, the blessed Spirit also will no doubt 
continue his benign and boundless influences over our 
sanctified natures, and be to us, it may be, personally, 
an object of love no less distinct, no less dear, than the 
Father and the Son.. There is something inexpressibly 
beautiful in the thought of his secret, gentle influences, 
adapted now to the great purposes of probation so as 
not to interfere with our accountableness, and deriving, 
hereafter, a prominence in our grateful and admiring 
love in consequence of his being now officially subordi- 
nate, though, hereafter, it may be, becoming no less an 
object of love and joy than Christ. 

We cannot, therefore, but pray to the Holy Spirit; 
for we were baptized, we are blessed, in his name. He 
awakens us, and convinces us of sin. Except a man be 


born of Him he cannot see the kingdom of God. If the 
12 * 


188 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


only sin which is unpardonable is a sin against the 
Holy Ghost, it follows that all sins against Him must 
be peculiarly heinous. We are warned not to ‘¢ quench” 
Him, nor to “grieve” Him. By Him we are “sealed 
unto the day of redemption.” 

One word in concluding this whole subject of the 
Divine Existence. — It is, of course, no more desirable 
to us in itself than it can be to those who differ from 
us, that this thick darkness of an impenetrable mystery —. 
the doctrine of the Trinity —should be round about God. 
We do not create it; we find certain things revealed 
respecting Christ and the Holy Spirit, and they are 
such that one of two things is inevitable, namely, We 
must believe in Three Gods, or, The One God has a 


threefold distinction in His nature. 


WEL: 


MAN. 


ei 


of 


oA” 
! 
0 i 
_ 
* 
. 
4 
J 
) 
J 7 





VII. 
MAN. 


HERE is to every being and thing a Nature. It is 

not character, — meaning by that the average result 
of conduct; it is antecedent to conduct. The nature 
may exist for a season without manifesting its intrinsic 
qualities. 

We see. this illustrated in every thing that grows out 
of the earth. Before a plant is old enough to have 
qualities, either useful or hurtful, it has a nature, known 
to the botanist, and physician, or to the florist, and upon 
discovery of its nature, it is selected from the products 
of a whole field to be transplanted, that its nature may, 
by appropriate treatment, be developed. The feelings 
of the botanist or florist partake of approbation towards 
that undeveloped and at present useless, plant, as really 
as though it had already put forth the qualities which 
it is sure to possess. As his eye lights upon its feeble 
form just appearing above the ground, he exclaims, This 
is mint, or anise; this is a rose, or a grape-vine. He 


imputes to that nature the qualities which it has not yet 


142 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


manifested; it is an object of love with him; or if it 
be a poisonous plant, he treats it accordingly. 

This may be more strikingly seen in the feelings which 
we all have toward the new-born of animals and rep- 
tiles, before they have put forth their first actions. A 
child finds an unfledged bird fallen from its nest; the 
child’s parent is called, and the helpless thing is kindly 
restored to its dam. The next moment a young, help- 
less snake is seen in the grass; it is yet as harmless as 
the sparrow; the feelings of the child are entirely the 
reverse of those which the sparrow occasioned; the 
parent is appealed to, with acry of terror, to kill the 
reptile. But the reptile might well say, Why is this! 
I have done no harm. Iam incapable of stinging. The 
vessels formed to hold poison have no poison in them. 
I am as innocent as the sparrow which you have so 
tenderly restored to the nest. . 

We see in the children of the same family something 
lying back of accidental circumstances, and manifesting 
itself in a way peculiar to each child, though all were 
watched over and nurtured by the same parents and 
attendants from the beginning. ‘This is the child’s na- 
ture. Some, disregarding the distinction between our 
nature as God originally made it, and as our first parents 
depraved it, say, The child’s nature came from the | 
hand of God as truly as the color of its eyes and hair. 
This is not correct. Interposing causes, it is true, have 
not lessened God’s sovereignty as to the formation of this 


nature, but still our nature is not as it originally came 


MAN. 143 


from God. Yet when one thoughtlessly ridicules ano- 
ther for some natural defect or peculiarity, and the 
reply is, I am as God made me, conscience echoes the 
reproof, and no cavil about the intervention of earthly 
parentage ever arises to diminish a consciousness of 
reproaching God if we mock an unfortunate fellow-crea- 
ture for his natural infirmity. Job says, without fear 
of any speculative objections, ‘“* Did not He that made 
me in the womb, make him? And did not one fashion 
us In the womb?” But we must never forget that 
**God made man upright,” and that man voluntarily 
departed from God, and that thereby ‘judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation.” 

There is that in man when he is born, by whatever 
name we designate it, which constitutes a certainty that 
the man will sin. This condition of things in the man 
at his birth is commonly called his nature. 

It appears from the narrative in the second chapter 
of Genesis, that the first human pair were created with 
a nature predisposed to holiness, and were placed on 
probation. We know the result. Very many questions 
have been asked, and will continue to be asked, in vain, 
respecting this origin of evil in connection with the 
race. The testimony of the word of God is perfectly 
simple; it is wise not to venture beyond it into the 
unfathomable mysteries of the divine counsels. 

Revelation informs us that of the angels some have 
‘allen, while others remain upright ; but nothing is said 


to warrant, nor to discourage, the inference that all 


144 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


intelligent creatures are, at some period of their exist- 
ence, placed on probation. We only know that this 
was certainly the case with man. 

The object being to try him, whether he would obey 
God, we perceive, by the narrative, that the trial was 
as favorable to him as we could imagine a trial to be. 
He had full proof of the’ goodness of God; his wants 
were every way provided for; one prohibition only was 
made, and the promises and threatenings of God con- 
nected with it were most explicit. The direful result, 
and the manner in which it came to pass, are told 
in the plainest terms. 

That all their posterity were, in some way, involved 
by this act of their first parents, is evident as well from 
express declarations of Scripture, as from the nature of 
the curses which ensued upon their fall. The ground 
was cursed; hard labor was imposed as the necessary 
means of sustenance ; we know what was said to woman, 
and how literally all these curses are fulfilled. — 

That there is a connection between the moral char- 
acter of our first parents and their posterity, the Scrip- 
tures assert in direct terms. ‘ By one man’s offence 
death reigned by one.” By the trial and failure of 
our first parents, all their posterity come into existence 
predisposed to evil, so that all men inevitably sin. 

As early as the time of Job, it was said, —‘* How 
can he be clean that is born of a woman?” Such 
an indiscriminate stigma on woman would not have 


been uttered, were she not incapable of giving birth 


MAN. 145 


to offspring with an upright nature. Even the flood 
failed to restore man to uprightness, for the Most High 
said of him, after the flood, “« The imagination of man’s 
heart is evil from his youth.” All is summed up when 
it is said by the inspired prophet, ‘The heart is deceit- 
ful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can 
know it?’ Omniscience alone answers this question: 
“T, the Lord, search the heart; I try the reins.” 

Our Saviour’s testimony as to the natural state and 
character of man, is terrible. Suppose that from the 
door of a house, impersonated murder, theft, unclean- 
ness of every shape should commonly proceed. We 
could be in no doubt as to the character of the house. 
Now Christ says, ‘“‘Out of the heart proceed evil 
thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false 
witnesses, blasphemies.”’ It would insure destruction to 
a house or punishment to its owner to represent such 
terrible things as its accustomed deliveries. 

Paul in the Epistle to the Romans declares that 
“every mouth” is “stopped”? from self-justification, 
and “the whole world is become guilty before God ;” 
and that “by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be 
justified.” If the bias of man to good and to evil is 
originally equal, it isg unaccountable that “no flesh” 
should have grown to man’s estate free from sin. The 
Ephesian Christians are told by Paul that they were 
‘by nature the children of wrath even as others.” “The 
current manner of speaking when the world of mankind 


is referred to, shows how God regards them. ‘“ The 
13 


146 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


world”? has a bad name in the Word of God. ‘ The 
friendship of the world is enmity with God.” ‘ Whoso 
will be a friend of the world is an enemy of God.” 
One of the names of the devil is, “the god of this 
world.” 

If any thing more could be needed, we have it in 
the declaration that ‘the carnal mind is enmity against 
God, not subject to the law of God, neither indeed 
can be.’ ‘So then they that are in the flesh cannot 
please God.” ‘The natural man receiveth not the 
things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness 
unto him.” It is said of us, ‘“‘’ They are all gone out 
of the way; there is none that doeth good, no, not 
one.” 

“‘ There must be, and there is, in man,” says one,} 
“something which is the ground and reason that the 
will of fallen man does, from the beginning, act wrong, — 
something anterior to voluntary action.”’ ‘There must 
be some ground, in the nature of the race, for the early 
personal and actual sin with which they are all charge- 
able.’ ‘To say that all men sin, actually, univer- 
sally, and forever, until renewed by the Holy Ghost, 
and that against the strongest possible motives, merely 
because they are free agents, an@® are able to do so, and 
that there is in their nature as affected by the fall, no 
cause or reason of the certainty, is absurd. It is to 
ascribe the most stupendous concurrence of perverted 


action in all the adult millions of mankind, to nothing. 


1 Rev. Lyman Beecher, D.D. Quoted by Dr. Woods, II. 218 


MAN. ; 147 


The thing to be accounted for, is, the phenomenon of an 
entire series of universal, actual sin; and to ascribe the 
universal and entire obliquity of the human will to the 
simple ability of choosing wrong, is to ascribe the moral 
obliquity of a lost world to nothing.” 

Dr. Chalmers says, ‘‘ Should it be found true of every 
man that he is actually a sinner, should this hold univer- 
sally true with each individual of the human family ; 
if in every country of the world, and in every age 
of the world’s history, all who have grown old enough 
to be capable of showing themselves, were transgress- 
ors against the law of God,—and, if, among all the 
accidents and varieties of condition to which humanity 
is liable, each member of humanity shall betake himself 
to his own ways and deviations from the rule of right 
—then he sins purely in virtue of his being a man; 
there is something in the very make and mechanism 
of his nature which causes him to be a sinner.’? — 
“To talk of the original sin of our species, thereby 
intending to signify the existence of a prior and univer- 
sal disposition to sin, is just as warrantable as to affirm 
the most certain laws or soundest classifications in natu- 
ral history.” 

On this important and perplexing subject writers are 
in danger of two extremes. They may attempt to 
silence inquiry by enjoining upon us unconditional sub- 
mission to God; or, they may lead us into speculations, 
with the amiable purpose of vindicating the justice 


of God. 


148 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


When we have ascertained the revealed truth on this, 
or on any subject, it is not improper for us, in a humble’ 
and cautious way, to point out reasons which we think 
we see for adoring the wisdom of God; and yet, in doing 
thus, we shall be in danger of prescribing rules to the 
divine conduct, and of saying that one thing must be, 
and that another cannot be, and, as the result, seeming 
to bestow our poor approval upon the plans and ways 
of God. We must be watchful against this, and equally 
so against the tendency to make our preconceived 
convictions of what should be, and must be, the rule 
by which we interpret Scripture, and construct our 
theories. 

Very many difficulties connected with the present 
subject would be obviated, and the minds of many would 
be relieved with regard to questions which never can 
be determined, would we but properly consider a cer- 
tain question of the inspired Apostle in connection with 
the subject. It is this: ‘Shall the thing formed say 
unto him that formed it, Why hast thou made me 
thus ?”’ 

Because we violate the letter and spirit of the truth 
implied in this question, we fall into the mazes of specu- 
lation about the existence and origin of sin. As to the 
clay in the hands of the potter, we agree that the clay 
has no right to call in question the wisdom of the potter. 
But men have declared it to be inconsistent with the jus- 
tice, or the wisdom, or the benevolence of God, to deter- 


mine that we shall each be born with an inherited nature 


MAN. 149 


which will inevitably develop itself in sinful disposi- 
tions and actions. We, being intelligent creatures, it 
is said, have a right to judge with regard to the justice 
of God’s plan; and we object that,in the nature of 
things, it is not right so to connect offspring with parents 
that accountable creatures shall receive a nature which 
will inevitably lead to sin, or to hold us responsible for 
the acts committed under the operation of that pre- 
arranged bias. ‘Therefore, it is said, it cannot be that 
God has connected the nature of each human being 
with the sin of Adam, because it would be unjust. 
The passages of Scripture which seem to assert this, 
must be construed in conformity with the dictates of 
justice. 

To get relief, some insist that the child is born free 
from any bias to evil, and that the general depravation of 
the race is owing to evil examples. Others reply that 
God connected us with Adam in his trial, but meets us at 
once with recovering mercy at our birth, providing a 
Second Adam for us, to save us, if we die in infancy, by 
that regeneration which comes as a consequence of re- 
demption, —a free gift, as our connection with Adam 
was, also, without our choice. Moreover, they say that 
if no one is finally lost merely for his connection with 
Adam, and that in every case, the sinner will be held 
responsible only for his own acts as though he were on 
trial in Paradise, no injustice is inflicted upon him. 

Happily for man, it is not necessary, in order to know 
and do his duty, that he should say to Him that formed 

13 * 


& 


150 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


him, ‘‘ Why hast thou made me thus?” or that he should 
know any thing beyond the plain truth that he sinned as 
soon as he began to do any thing, and that he received 
from his parents and through the sin of the first human 
pair, a nature which would inevitably sin as soon as it 
was capable of moral action. Here the Bible stops, and 
here it would persuade us to pause. Ages of conflict 
would have been prevented had man but hearkened to its 
voice. We must be willing to admit that a sovereign 
God is holy, just, and good while bringing us each into 
existence with a nature which from the beginning of 
moral action will certainly go astray from God; and that 
this is in consequence of ‘one man’s disobedience.” We 
shall fall into difficulties as great as those from which we 
try to escape, if, in order to clear up the ground of human 
accountability, we venture to bring the moving cause of 
man’s universal sinfulness one step forward of his inher- 
ited nature into his volitions. ‘There is something back 
of volitions which constitutes the certainty which there is 
that every man will sin. But in connection with it there 
is a mystery related to the will and agency of God in the 
case, which has never been solved. 

While, in order, as they think, to clear the way for ap- 
peals to man as accountable for being a sinner, some deny 
the original corruption of our nature, they, in common 
with all men, involuntarily show, by some of the ordinary 
modes of speech, that the badness of a nature is a proper 
cause for humiliation and self-reproach. If a youth sins, 


and men can say of him, ‘“ The stock is bad,” and can 


— 


MAN. 155i 


refer to the notorious wickedness of his immediate pro- 
genitors, we feel that the sight of the evil done by his 
parents, and its consequences, ought to have deterred him 
from transgression, and that it does not palliate his sins. 
The same principle appears in the declaration by the Most 
High that no man doing righteously shall suffer for the 
sins of progenitors ; thus indirectly asserting the ordinary 
law which involves parent and child one with the other, 
when both are transgressors. Experience and observation 
everywhere teach us, that a consciousness of inborn and 
inbred evil is a proper cause for humiliation and con- 
fession. We all of us go back from our actual sins to the 
source and fountain of them in our original depravity. 
Weare more humbled at being capable of sinning, than 
at the sin. Though David speaks of his mother to the 
Most High as ‘thine handmaid,”’ yet he says, ‘‘ Behold 
I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother con- 
ceive me.” We may call such feelings and expressions 
the suggestions of modesty, or the exaggerations of ori- 
ental speech; but the concurrent voice of the human 
heart groaning with a sense of sin and misery, utters the 
same strain from age to age. When men feel intensely 
on any subject, they resort to metaphorical language, and 
on no subject is language laid under a more extreme con- 
tribution than in the efforts of men to express their con- 
sciousness of guilt and the evil of sin. Thus the theology 
of the intellect, when it is clear and strong, resorts to the 
feelings for help to express itself ; and then the metaphors 


which it employs, instead of being flowers of speech, are 


2 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


agonies and wailings, illustrating the remark of Coleridge, 
before quoted, that “the feeling is often the deeper 
reason.” 

But why, it is involuntarily asked, should God have 
connected mankind with the sin of their first parents ? 

One consideration will serve to show, in answer to 
all such inquiries, how utterly incapable we are of call- 
ing in question the wisdom and benevolence of God in 
making judgment to come upon all men to condemna- 
tion for the sin of their first parents. Let us consider 
how totally different was the treatment of our first 
parents by their Heavenly Father from the treatment 
which erring children would, upon their first offence, 
receive from an earthly parent. He would naturally 
say, As this is your first transgression, I shall pass it 
by, and will forgive you. Instead of this, suppose that 
he should at once eject them from their residence, given 
them by himself; that he should station swordsmen to 
keep them from it; that he should inflict injury upon 
the very soil where they might fix their dwelling, and 
thus subject them to painful labor in procuring the 
necessaries of life; that sickness and bodily pain should 
be their lot when it was in his power to prevent it, and 
that murder, and pestilence, and famine, and, in short, 
every form of evil, should be allowed to prevail over 
their posterity in all their generations ;— and all this as 
a consequence of their first transgression, which he had 
refused to pass by! 


Now, whatever difficulties may, in any view of the 


ee 


MAN. . 153 


case, present themselves to our minds, on this subject 
of original sin, we plainly see, in the way in which God 
has visited the race for the sin of their first parents, 
that we cannot apply to his administration, for its rule, 
our moral sentiments, nor our instincts, nor the accus- 
tomed modes of procedure which are proper in the 
intercourse of men with one another. And we may as. 
well, therefore, first as last, give over any such attempt ; 
we are as really at fault in our moral conceptions of what 
is infinitely wise and benevolent, as the clay, if it could 
speak, might be, in its colloquy with the potter as to 
its shape and use. 

It may serve a good purpose in some cases to show 
that, so far as we can see, our condition might not 
have been any more favorable had we each stood, as 
‘Adam did originally, to try for himself the question 
whether he would remain upright. This view of the 
case, while it does not lead us into speculation, will 
serve to relieve certain painful thoughts which many 
have on this subject. 

It seems that God, instead of placing each of us on 
probation to determine what the condition of our nature 
shall be, whether upright or fallen, has tried that ques- 
tion for each of us, and for all men, in the persons of 
representatives, the first human pair. | 

But a part of the plan, evidently, was, to provide 
redemption for the race, immediately upon: the apostasy 
of its representatives. We need not exercise ourselves 


with supposing cases, and with trying to decide whether 


154 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


it would have been just for God to have done certain 
things in certain circumstances. We are to take 
these two plain things together, namely, Man’s apostasy 
from God as a race, in the person of his progenitors, 
and, Redemption immediately provided, in the person 
of another representative of the race, the Seed of the 
, Woman. 

One thing is plain, even to reason unassisted by revela- 
tion, namely, ‘That we should all probably hesitate to try, 
each in our own person, the question of our continuance 
in original uprightness, if no Redeemer were to be pro- 
vided for us in case of failure. For we perceive that 
our nature, in the garden of Eden, in circumstances the 
most favorable to a continuance in holiness, failed. 

There were two of our race on trial. One yielded 
to a tempter operating on her curiosity ; the other, 
and the stronger nature, yielded at the solicitation, and 
after the example, of the weaker. We must be well 
assured of our strength to resist temptation if we say 
that we would have done better in the same circum- 
stances than our first parents. And he must have a 
superhuman fancy who can invent a more favorable 
trial than was granted to them. 

But one may say, Think of the millions of our 
race who, coming into existence with a bias to evil, 
follow it, and live and die in sin. How much better 
to have given them each a fair chance for himself’! 

One obvious answer is,—It cannot be denied that 


as many might have perished upon that scheme as will 


MAN. 155 


now fail of salvation. Until we know that an equal 
or greater number would not have apostatized from 
original uprightness, we, leaving Revelation out of view, 
are unable to object, that the present plan was not 
the most benevolent and wise. 

It cannot be shown that our fallen nature will, of 
itself, be the cause of any man’s perdition; nor that . 
any will be lost who would not have fallen, had every 
one been created upright lke Adam, to try for him- 
self the question of perseverance in uprightness. 

While we know that men do come into existence 
with a nature which will inevitably sin, and therefore 
that its preponderance is to evil, we are to recollect, 
if we speculate, that redemption was immediately pro- 
vided for man when he fell. If one proceeds to ask, 
But would it have been just and benevolent if God 
had entailed sin and future misery on men, in conse- 
quence of the error of their progenitor, without pro- 
viding a Redeemer ?— we may answer, Why should we 
be disquieted in vain about that which is not? Enough 
for us that, born with a nature absolutely inclined to 
evil and not to good, we are born into a world and 
under a constitution in which mercy, all over the earth, 
meets us, when we come into existence. If God had 
made any other arrangement, of course it would have 
been just and benevolent; for, “as for God, his 
work is perfect.” ‘I know,” says the wise man, 
‘“‘that whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever ; 
nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from 


156 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


it; and God doeth it» that men should fear before 
”» While we bow to this, with love and trust, 


we are not in the present case left on the dark sea 


him. 


of speculation. The bestowment of mercy in the form 
of redemption is as mucha historic part of the trans- 
actions in Eden as the transgression; and the two 
things must be coupled together in our minds to com- 
plete any just idea of the scheme. If, therefore, one 
says to himself, Would it have been just to connect 
our inherited nature with the sin of Adam, if no 
Redemption had been provided, we may answer, Such 
is not the case with man. 

If one still insists, ‘I would prefer to have tried the 
question, in my own person, whether to stand or fall ;’ — 
we have already seen that Paradise and the discomfiture, 
which it witnessed, of our nature in its best estate, 
should admonish us to decline the risk. If we desire a 
further admonition, we have it in the angels of God 
themselves, whose experience in heaven, and the very 
presence of God himself were not able to keep them 
from apostasy, but a morning star among them fell by 
transgression, and with him a host. Behold them with 
no Redeemer. Such, we cannot deny, might have been 
the consequences to each of us had we stood each for 
himself, and had lost our original uprightness, as Adam 
did, by one transgression. But to this it will be said, 
True, yet it was possible to have brought each of us 
into a state of probation upright, and to have provided 


Redemption for those who should have apostatized. To 


MAN. Lok 


this we say, Angels sinned, not in consequence of an 
inherited evil nature, but each on his personal probation, 
in an upright state; for them, falling as they did, no 
Redeemer was provided. Man, too, falls in his personal 
probation, but he is to have a posterity born in his 
sinful likeness; for them a Redeemer is provided. All 
this is from the Word of God. Adhering closely to the 
information which it gives us, and remaining satisfied 
with it, we cannot err. With regard to man, God has 
declined to try each of us in a state of uprightness. Do 
we raise the question whether it would have been more 
just and wise for Him to have decided the other way ? 
Supposing that angels and men, respectively, represent 
the two schemes of the personal and federal probation 
of original natures, and that to personal probation no 
redemption can be annexed, but that it is a necessary 
accompaniment, in the divine plan, when a nature is 
tried in a representative, to provide redemption for his 
posterity, we of the human race surely cannot bring 
any complaint against the divine procedure in our case. 
For, if the two things: invariably go together, namely, 
redemption, and the connection of a nature with the 
act of a progenitor, or if, finding them together in our 
case, we are at last led to suspect that there is no 
Redeemer to those who are tried and fall in an upright 
state, each for himself, alone, then we are prepared to 
say that instead of blaming Infinite Wisdom and Beney- 
olence for suffering us to come into the world with a 


nature already tried and fallen, we may perhaps see 
14 


158 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


reasons for gratitude to God that we are born into a 
condition in which, if we are willing to comply with 
the appointed method of salvation, not even a sinful 
nature, and perpetual inability to keep the law of God, 
will put us in jeopardy of eternal death; ‘for not as it 
was by one that sinned, so is the gift; for the judgment 
was by one to condemnation; but the free gift is of 
many offences unto justification.” We say then, Before 
a man impugns the present constitution, he is bound 
at least to suppose a possible condition of things which 
would be for the better. 

If there is to be risk as to our salvation, it is evidently 
far better for us to take that risk under a constitution 
of mercy instead of law ;—-far better to let the question 
be, Will I reject mercy ? than, Will I yield to no possible 
form of temptation to sin?—jit certainly is better, pro- 
vided that one act of consent to sin would be followed 
by consecutive transgressions without end, as in the case 
of angels. 

All this, however, is a mere defensive mode of state- 
ment. It is not implied, and no one can say it, that 
the only alternative before the Divine Mind was, the con- 
nection of a race with its progenitor and a Redeemer, or 
personal probation without a Redeemer. Knowing how 
the case actually is with regard to man, the only proper 
stand for us to take is upon the Word of God, and to 
require of ourselves and of others implicit submission to 
its unequivocal teachings. If we differ as to interpre- 


tation, that is one thing; but if we interpret alike, and 


MAN. 159 


then object to the revelation that there are insuperable 
difficulties in the way of accepting it, we at once destroy 
the authority of revelation. It is a legitimate use of 
reason to show that those who dissent from the plain 
declarations of God’s word involve themselves in no less 
difficulties than those from which they profess to flee. 
And it is not unsuitable to persuade others, who are 
tempted to forsake the Bible, that they are no better off 
on any other scheme than that which, in the Bible, tries 


their confidence in the wisdom and goodness of God. 


uve 


br + iv aT oa j ‘ r~ caf tt) sey 








_ ' ‘ i. i 
cr oh. FE) TA ee PSS rigid 


talnvoy ‘ho otiaoddgedall 


owt. bei oA Ti on oregbingt 
mw. ; ‘ itis Bes res a8) 


* 
& 
. 
. 
* 
a 
XN 
i? » 
: * 
" 
. 
4 
in + 
4 ” 
. 
* Rae 
» 
x 
, - 
nN” 
74 
r : 
- 
ra. 
* 
' y? a) 
i 
us, 
, 7 Ls 


VILLI. 


MAN. 


CONTINUED. 


‘ 
ee 


a}, 





VIIt. 


MAN.—CONTINUED. 


F human nature be thus determined beforehand as 

to its depraved condition when man enters upon 
this probationary state, and if he receives from the hand 
of God a nature with a bias to sin, how is he account- 
able? Why should he not act out his nature? 

The Bible being our only source of information with 
regard to these questions, we may say, that the account- 
ability of men is everywhere assumed in Scripture as 
fully as his guilt. But the Bible does not go behind 
the sinner’s consciousness in its charges and in its 
demands upon him. God has connected the nature of 
every human being with the fall of his first parents ; 
yet every one is dealt with as being fully responsible. 

One maxim, remembered and applied, will help us 
greatly in connection with this subject. It is this: 
Though, in debating with regard to theories, it be lawful 
to say whether this or that is consistent with the divine 
attributes, yet, when we find that God has actually 
done any thing, all question about its justice, wisdom, 
and benevolence, is forever out of place. We may 


well employ ourselves in showing forth the wisdom and 


164 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


benevolence in his actions, if we are modest, and confess 
how little, after all, we know, even in this direction ; but 
to debate whether the appointments of the Most High 
are wise and good, is not within our proper province. 

The difficulties connected with the subject of human 
accountability always lead us back to the original deter- 
mination of the Most High to create moral agents, 
with liability to sin and to perish. We are compelled 
to resolve every thing at last into the sovereign will 
of God, taking things as we find them, and receiving 
his revealed will as the only, and the sufficient, rule 
of our duty. | 

It will in some way assist us to do this, to ask our- 
selves the following question: How, if God saw fit to 
create us free to choose, and personally responsible for 
our final salvation, would it now appear to us most 
wise and benevolent for Him to bring us into our state 
of probation? Shall it be on our own personal respon- 
sibility for continuance with an upright nature, with no 
provision in case of our fall? or, shall He try the ques- 
tion for us all in the person of a federal head, we, 
then, coming into the world with the fallen nature of 
our progenitor, and having this for our probation, Will 
you accept redemption, and be saved, on terms pro- 
pounded by God your Saviour ? | 

In choosing for us this latter method of being placed 
on trial, no man can say that God has done him any 
wrong, or that He has been unkind, unless it was 


wrong to create him; for to prove this, he must show 





MAN. 165 


that he would certainly have fared better had he been 
allowed to stand originally upon his own righteousness, 
and to take the risk of keeping or losing his integrity. 
Or, he must show that the chances would have been 
in favor of his remaining upright. Surely he cannot 
say this with the example of our first parents before 
him, and knowing, too, that angels in heaven left their 
first estate. 

As to the mode in which we are now severally tried, 
i: may be observed, in illustration of the kindness and 
fairness which marks it, that we are told: ‘* God is 
faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above 
that ye are able; but will, with the temptation, also 
make a way for your escape, that ye may be able to 
bear it.” From the very first, conscience, God’s vice- 
gerent, is set to protect and keep us. ‘There is placed 
before us a suffermg Redeemer, a sacrifice for our sins; 
this is made the source of the most pathetic appeals to us 
that we deny ourselves and, ‘“‘ forasmuch as Christ hath 
suffered for us in the flesh,” that we ‘“‘arm ourselves 
likewise with the same mind.” His aid is promised: 
‘Hor in that He hath suffered, being tempted, He is 
able also to succor them that are tempted.” The 
Holy Spirit is specially intrusted with the work of 
making and keeping us holy, and promises exceeding 
great and precious are made to him who overcomes. 

It is plain, then, that our sinful nature of itself will 
never be the cause of any man’s final perdition; and it 


cannot be shown that one will be lost who would not 


166 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


have been lost had he been created upright, like Adam, 
to try the question for himself, without a Redeemer in 
case of failure, whether he will forever resist temptation. 

The ancestors of every nation once had the knowledge 
of salvation by Christ. The vast majority ‘did not 
like to retan God in their knowledge.’ Then the 
great law by which parents and children are connected 
and involved as to moral character and condition, comes 
into view; but, at the same time, every -individual is 
declared still to be without excuse for irreligion, ‘* because 
that which may be known of God is manifest in them ; 
for God hath showed it unto them.’ The absence 
of the Bible will not affect their condemnation, for their 
consciences, the works of God, experience of goodness 
notwithstanding their sins, furnish perpetual lessons as 
to the character of God and _ his disposition . towards 
them. ‘So that they are without excuse ;”?— which 
words are a rebuke to unjust commiseration. 

We come, therefore, to consider more minutely the 
actual effect of Adam’s sin upon the character of his 
posterity. | 

On this point the Bible is explicit. ‘* By one man’s 
disobedience many were made sinners.” ‘This is bold, 
unequivocal language. The obvious meaning is, that 
they were placed under a constitution of things by which 
they come into the world with the same fallen nature 
which man had after his first transgression. ‘ By one 
man’s offence death reigned by one.’ ‘In Adam 


all die.”’ 





MAN. 167 


So that, as a consequence of Adam’s sin, the nature 
of every man is in a fallen condition, averse to the 
moral character of God; and its first moral acts will 
inevitably be wrong. Every infant, therefore, has a 
nature as really apostate from God as the nature of 
Adam was upon his fall. ‘* Death reigned from Adam to 
Moses even over them that had not sinned after the 
similitude of Adam’s transgression.’’ No infant is ever 
known to develop a sinless nature; its immediate parents 
do not transmit to the child their regenerated state, but 
its connection with the first human pair asserts itself, 
without exception. An infant, therefore, needs regener- 
ation as truly as an adult. An infant has a nature, 
and it is a nature which is not in conformity to God. 

It is the view of some that an infant comes into the 
world with its nature equipoised as to sin and holiness ; 
that it no more needs regeneration than a rosebud; only 
let it develop fairly, and it will be holy. 

It is remarkable, if this be so, that the race has not 
improved from age to age, or that we do not see in chil- 
dren instances of entire freedom from the predisposition to 
sin. If men at any period of their lives are destitute 
of a nature, there is a period when they are not capable 
of regeneration, for then there is no evil tendency, no 
oredisposition needing to be cured. Should the child 
tie in that condition, what assurance is there that in 
leaven it will be forever holy, seeing that angels in 
reaven fell? If it goes to heaven on the ground of its 


ywn personal constitution, it may leave its first estate 


168 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


like them. If infants are not depraved, they have no 
moral connection with Aas It is to them, in that 
respect, as though he had not sinned. When they 
die, they have nothing to do with Christ. It is incorrect 
to speak of them as being “saved ;’’—Zindeed, why is 
it not as incorrect as to say that a ministering angel, 
returning from earth to heaven, is “saved”? We shall 
find it difficult to allow that the vast proportion of the 
human race who have gone to heaven in infancy, are 
not, in any sense, under obligations to redemption, that 
they are not and cannot be of those who speak of 
Christ as ‘‘ Him that loved us and washed us from our 
sins in his own blood.” ‘There is much to ponder in 


these lines: 


“Bold infidelity! turn pale and die! 
Beneath this stone four infants’ ashes lie. 
Say, are they lost or saved ? 
If death’s by sin, they sinned, for they lie here; 
If heaven’s by works, in heaven they can’t appear ; 
Reason, ah! how depraved, revere the sacred page, 
They died, for Adam sinned; they live, for Jesus died.” 


It is a sad view of the infant world to regard them as 
separated from the adult race in the participation of 
benefits flowing from the Saviour. 

The Bible, in maintaining its silence on the subject, 
of our relation to Adam, and its consequences, except 
to declare that a relation exists such that, in conse- 
quence of it, ‘all have sinned,” forbears to utter a word 
with regard to the state of infants after death. There 





MAN. 169 


is much unholy feeling manifested on this subject, 
indicating a querulous temper, an unsubmissive heart. 
Human relationships in their depth and strength are 
offered as arguments which it is felt by many should 
control our views of the divine administration. But it 
is very strange that, standing in their desolated homes, 
where death has trampled on their tenderest affections 
and cut asunder ruthlessly their very heart-strings, men 
should not see that the natural affections which God 
has implanted in us are not the rule for his dispensa- 
tions; else, why do the children die? Whatever, there- 
fore, we may feel or say with regard to the salvation 
of infants, we should not suffer ourselves to prescribe 
our natural feelings as a guide for the divine conduct. 
Some believe that there are elect infants; others, that 
all of them having, without their choice, fallen in Adam, 
and having no personal probation, are, without their 
choice, made partakers of redemption by Christ. This 
may be said to be the present universal hope and belief 
of the Christian world, In expressing it we should 
remember that the Bible is silent on the subject, and 
we should not be moved, by the fear of being made 
odious, to venture assertions, nor to adopt a mode or 
tone of reasoning which, in kindly sympathizing with 
human instincts, may really take part with man against 
God. 

How are the common representations of human depray- 
ity consistent with all which is confessedly amiable and 


praiseworthy in men? In what sense is man depraved ? 
15 


170 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


There are amiable and _ beneyolent instincts, social 
virtues, affections which give a charm to the domestic 
relations, courtesies, acts of kindness, which make human 
intercourse pleasant, self-denial for others, and self-sacri- 
fice, and the highest forms of cultivation, and even a 
certain fear of God, leading to a sense of dependence 
and obligation, and to acts of worship. 

But every human being is by nature averse to the 
moral character of God. We are capable of perceiy- 
ing, appreciating, and loving all forms of moral good- 
ness. We see children happy at the reception of gifts, 
and grateful for them, and fully capable of appreciating 
them. They listen to tales and show that they discern 
between good and evil. Every created object, and every 
character, according as it is good or bad, excites a cor- 
responding emotion. 

God is an exception, and He is the only exception, 
in the effect which his character has upon us. ‘The 
Author, Source, and Sum of all excellence is the only 
object who is not, as a matter of course, loved and 
sought after. Is it natural to be filled with enthusiasm 
at the thought of God? But there is no natural 
impossibility in the way of this. His mountains, his 
ocean, his waterfalls, his firmament, excite enthusiasm ; 
why not their Maker? If it be said that his natural 
greatness cannot be so appreciated as to excite such 
feelings, it may be replied that some men do become 
enthusiastic in their feelings about God. David is an 


example, and Isaiah, and Daniel, and Paul, and the 





MAN. 171 


number is great of those since their day, to the pres- 
ent hour, who, like them, having experienced a certain 
spiritual renovation, love God supremely. Why, there- 
fore, is it not universally the case that men love God? 
Why is not the literature of the world imbued with 
these feelings toward God ? Why could not Lord Byron 
have written in such strains as these by Dr. Watts ? — 


“My God, my portion, and my love! 
My everlasting all! 

I’ve none but thee in heaven above, 
Nor on this earthly, ball.” 


We find the poets filled with rapture about nature, 
human beauty, art, Switzerland, Italy ; they are devotees 
of genius in music, sculpture, painting, eloquence ; but 
equal love and zeal with regard to God our Maker 
would make their works, as a general thing, distasteful. 

If any one says, Can man be permitted to love God 
in the way described? We reply, Not only is he per- 
mitted, but the Saviour tells us, “The sum of all the 
commandments is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart, and with-all thy soul, and with all 
thy strength, and with all thy mind. This is the first 
and great commandment.” 

Is it natural for men to love God in this way? Is 
it natural for fathers to pray with their families? It is 
a dictate of reason that God should be acknowledged ; 
and the appointed way of acknowledging Him is by 


prayer. Yet men are extremely averse to this duty 


172 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


and privilege. They talk with their families, freely 
and enthusiastically, about every thing which interests 
them, but toward God their hearts are cold, their lips 
are sealed. , 

It is not pertinent to say, I am as good as multi- 
tudes of my kind. It is nothing to the point that we 
love men, that we are endowed with every social virtue. 
It would be easy to show that love to God is the 
necessary foundation of love to man, and that we are 
as really degenerate as to our feelings and duties toward 
our fellow men as toward God. But even if we could 
keep the second table of the commandments, namely, 
‘‘ Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” still the first 
commandment is greater than all, ** Thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God;’’ and our perfect compliance with other 
requirements, could we fulfil them, would only show 
how perfect is our natural ability to keep the first, 
and therefore how inexcusable we are in failing to 
keep it. 

The depravation of any thing whatever cannot be 
expressed, the idea of it cannot be conceived of, if it 
be not apparent from all this that there is entire depra- 
vation in man as to his natural feelings toward God. 
In addition to this, the mind of man is not subject to 
the law of God, and the Scripture is most explicit 
which says of it, in its natural, unrenewed state, — 
‘Neither indeed can be.’ Suppose a machine, or a 
ship, or an animal, or a tool, or a servant, to be as 


totally degenerated from its original appointment and 





MAN. 173 


use. as man is from supreme love and obedience to 
God ;—the terms commonly applied to the depravity 
of man would not be too strong to express our just 
opinion of them. 

The first subjects of the first transgression were utterly 
degraded from their original intimacy with God, conscious 
guilt and shame took possession of them, the ground 
was cursed for their sake, the multiplication of the species 


was to be ‘in sorrow,” 


and by that one man’s offence 
judgment was to: come upon all men to condemnation. 
Now we cannot doubt, in view of all this, that human 
nature received, in the persons of our progenitors, an 
injury which cannot be measured; for what have its 
consequences already been, in the history and the present 
condition of the human family ? 

But man’s condition under the remedial dispensation 
which ensued upon the fall is such that his natural 
depravity is qualified in many of its presentations ; things 
in him which contribute to happiness are strengthened 
and developed, and much that is charming supervenes 
upon his state of natural aversion to God. But when 
we consider who God is, and that supreme love and 
perfect obedience in thought, word, and deed, are natural 
duties, no one of ordinary intelligence can fail to see 
that language fails in expressing the utter depravation 
of our human nature. And when we see how this 
human nature, unrestrained by law, custom, cultivation, 
and self-interest, runs riot in every form of transgression 


against men, we are made to confess that the descriptions 
15 * 


174 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


of human nature by inspired pens are not the work of 
fancy, nor mere oriental rhetoric. 

It is not presumption to believe that the fall of angels 
and of man are lessons to the unfallen universe as to 
the inherent weakness of a created nature, the terrible 
nature of sin, and its awful consequences in the indi- 
vidual and to the race, both in its immediate effects and 
in its penalty, so that God will forever administer his 
government over his creatures by the help of these great 
illustrations. A moral government is a government of 
motives, instead of force. These sad and terrible histories 
may not be without their effect. 

As to ourselves, we cannot fail to see the evil of sin 
when we contemplate the effect of one transgression. 
But the effect of Adam’s sin in its wide-spread devas- 
tation was not owing to any inherent hemousness of 
that sin beyond those which we ourselves have com- 
mitted ; for had each of us stood, as Adam did, in the 
same relation to a race, we too might have looked forth 
forever on a numberless progeny ruined by our fault. 
Such is sin, and we are each a sinner. 

The world, for us, is full of trees of the knowledge 
of good and evil, that is, of forbidden things, abstinence 
from which in obedience to God will be followed with 
the knowledge of good, and indulgence in which will 
entail the knowledge of evil. 

And when we see what it is for a nature to be fallen, 
and to continue fallen, we have still further illustrations 


of sin. We see in the New Testament those who once 





MAN. 176 


filled thrones in heaven, now saying to the Saviour of 
the world, “If thou cast us out, suffer us to enter into 
the swine.”’ Such is sin, when it is finished. The time 
may come when any human being retaining a sinful 
nature would be capable, if permitted, to go forth and 
ruin a race, as he, that former morning star, who fell 
from heaven with his angels, ruined this world. Surely, 
we need not merely to be kept day by day from 
transgression ; we need not only a good character; we 
need a new nature— we must be born again. 

There is a cheerful view of this subject which deserves 
a brief allusion. Notice in the fifth of Romans, where 
this subject of our connection with Adam is dwelt upon 
at length, how the Apostle turns it into a_ prospect 
and a promise of enhanced blessedness through redeem- 
ing wisdom and love. In five different places, after 
describing the wisdom of God in his plan and _ opera- 
tion on the dark, mysterious side of the scene, he points 
across to a bright and animating view, and uses the 
expression five several times, “much more,” assuring 
us that the result of this whole economy relating to 
the fall of man will, to those who avail themselves 
of the offered salvation, result in stupendous blessings. 

This is the Apostle’s presentation of the subject : 
‘¢But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, 
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much 
more then, being justified by his blood, we shall be saved 
from wrath through him.” —‘“ For if when we were 
enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of 


176 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved 
by his life.” —‘ But not as the offence so is the free 
gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, 
much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, 
which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto 
many.” —‘“ For if by one man’s offence death reigned 
by one, much more they which receive abundance 
of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign 
in life by one, Jesus Christ.”” — ‘“ Moreover the law 
entered that sin might abound ; but where sin abounded, 
grace did much more abound; that as sin hath reigned 
unto death, even so might grace reign through righteous- 
ness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” 
Great questions relating to the existence of sin and 
suffering under the government of a benevolent God, 
their consistency with the increased happiness of the 
universe as a whole, and the vast problem of divine 
soverelonty, and the perfect accountableness of man, 
will probably task human ingenuity and put faith and 
submission to the test in time to come, as heretofore. 
But all which is necessary to human happiness and 
welfare is, nevertheless, as plain as noonday, namely, 
that we are, individually, guilty of sins by our own free 
consent, against express commands and restraining influ- 
ences of every kind, and against the love of God, so 
that every mouth is stopped, and no flesh can be jus- 
tified; that God is willing to forgive sin; that He has 
provided a way in which to justify us and yet be just; 
that God will not suffer us ‘“‘to be tempted above that” 


& 


MAN. ATT 


we “are able;” but that He “will also make a way to 
escape that” we ‘“‘ may be able to bear it;” that ‘ who- 


> in the Son * shall not come into con- 


soever believet 
demnation,” and that him “that cometh unto’? Him He 
‘¢ will in no wise cast out.”” Knowing these things, which 
it is the object of the Gospel to set forth, if we forget 
our personal responsibility and our personal probation 
under the Gospel, and insist on receiving explanations 
as to the existence of sin, we shall fail both of satisfac- 
tion and of final salvation. It is good to place ourselves 
and the government of the world, of men, of angels, 
and of devils, in the hands of the Supreme God, 
expecting that there will be inscrutable mysteries in his 
administration, and leaning always to such interpreta- 
tions and conclusions as exalt God and humble man. 
It has already been noticed that when the Almighty 
condescended to reason with Job on the mysteries of 
his administration, He gave him hard lessons in the 
science of the most familiar things, — the rain, the 
snow, the ice, the balancings of the clouds, the flight 
of birds. ‘* Then Job answered the Lord and said, — 
Who is he that hideth counsel with words without 
knowledge? Therefore have I uttered that I under- 
stood not; things too wonderful for me which I knew 
not.” 

These things, then, seem to be established : 

We come into the world with a nature which will 
inevitably develop itself as depraved. 

Notwithstanding this, our accountability is in no wise 


lessened. 


178 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


We are born under a constitution of mercy. 

It cannot be proved that the chance of endless hap- 
piness is not as great, to every man, as though he had 
tried the question, in a state of innocence, whether he 
would stand forever, or fall, like angels, without re- 
covery. 

Many questions as to the justice and wisdom of the 
present constitution of things result in questions as to 
the justice of creating immortal beings liable to sin. 
When we reach questions of this nature, if not before, 
we are met with these interrogatories: ‘+ Who hath 
directed the Spirit of the Lord, or, being his counsel- 
lor, hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, 
and who instructed him, and taught him in the path 
of judgment ?”’ 


11.6) 


ATONEMENT. 





; IX. 


ATONEMENT. 
SCRIPTURAL PROOFS. 


NSTEAD of beginning with any thing like specu- 
lation upon this subject, speaking first of the necessity 

of an atonement, and so finding our way into this great 
central truth as revealed in Scripture, we will follow 
the course which has been pursued with the other topics, 
and begin at once with the plain and simple declarations 
of the Bible with regard to a Sacrifice for the sin of the 
world. The use of reason in connection with this subject, 
and others like it, is, first of all, to ascertain whether it 
be revealed. This we do by interpreting the teachings 
of Scripture according. to the acknowledged laws of 
language in any writing. 

Christianity being the doctrine of Christ, the religion 
of Christ, a system of which Christ is the centre, we will 
suppose a stranger from a distant region, speaking our 
language, but totally ignorant of Christianity, to ask for 
one of our Sacred Books, which will most readily 
acquaint him with the essential truths of the Christian 
religion. We should, perhaps, select for him the Gospel 


by John. There is sufficient historical information in 
16 


182 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


it for his purpose, but, more peculiarly than in the other 
evangelists, every thing is made subservient to doctrine. 

But who is this John? he would first inquire. — He 
was the beloved disciple of the great Founder of the 
Christian religion, enjoying peculiar opportunities to be 
intimately acquainted with the very heart of the system. 

The stranger opens at John’s Gospel and reads: ‘In 
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
God, and the Word was God. ‘The same was in the 
beginning with God. All things were made by him, 
and without him was not any thing made that was 
made.” ‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt 
among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the 
only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” 

Supposing this inquirer to be as honest and as humble 
as those who, having no theory to maintain, have in all 
ages agreed in the impression which these words have 
made upon them, we are sure that he will now say, 
Here is a disclosure of One who is evidently supernatural, 
who is associated with Deity, and who, it seems, became 
a man and dwelt familiarly among men. 

But it seems he had a herald, divinely appointed, — 
“qa man sent from God,” ‘“‘to bear witness”’ of this 
mysterious Being, “that all men through him might 
believe.” It will be important to attend while the herald 
announces him. It seems that the people were expecting 
the coming of this heavenly visitor. They sent messages 
to the herald to know if he were the expected one, or 


whether He was yet to come. ‘The next day” the 





ATONEMENT. 183 


’ and he thereupon 


herald “‘ saw Jesus coming unto him,’ 
made this public annunciation: ‘* Behold the Lamb of 
God which taketh away the sin of the world.’’ ‘The 
next day he was standing with two of his disciples, when 
the Messiah again was in sight, and “looking upon 
Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God.” 

This was a remarkable designation. He at first called 
Him ‘“ Lamb of God.” The expression seems meta- 
phorical ; perhaps he will explain it. But in his second 
annunciation of Him, and that in a more private way, 
evidently for the information of the two disciples then 
with him, he repeats the self-same word, — ‘“ Behold the 
Lamb of God.” 

The name by which a stranger is first made known 
in a community, we all know, is of special importance, 
and care is naturally taken that it should convey a defi- 
nite and a correct idea of the individual who is to be 
the object of public attention. 

Why, says our inquirer, did the herald affix to this 
mysterious One the title of ‘* Lamsp?’?—He replies to 
himself, perhaps, that the word intimates innocence, 
meekness, mildness; and so, it may be, the meaning is, 
that this new messenger of God is one whose chief char- 
acteristic 1s Innocence and meekness. 

But this is not satisfactory; it does not meet all the 
requirements of the case. It gives an inadequate idea 
of him who is thus heralded. Innocence, meekness, 
mildness, are good qualities in their place, but they are 


not the working qualities of a character. A lord com- 


184 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


missioner, or a plenipotentiary who should be announced 
at court as a lamb-like man, or a founder of a new 
system of philosophy or religion who should be charac- 
terized above all things as preéminently a harmless, 
mild character, would hardly be grateful to his herald 
for such an announcement, nor would he awaken proper 
expectations in the minds of men. 

But soon the mysterious Being himself begins to speak 
and act. Our inquirer reads the conversation between 
him and Nathanael. He gets the impression of preter- 
natural knowledge on the part of the Messiah. The con- 
versation with Nicodemus ensues. The Great Teacher 
does not receive his confession of him, —‘* we know that 
thou art a teacher come from God,” —as sufficient, but 
proceeds to teach him the necessity of a supernatural 
change to be experienced by every man in order to be 
saved. He did not need to inform ‘a master in Israel’ 
with regard to the necessity of moral improvement in 
order to enter heaven, nor would Nicodemus then have 
‘marvelled.’ 

Now the Great Teacher, begins to assert his own 
supernatural origin. ‘And no man hath ascended into 
heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the 
Son of man which is in heaven.” Here is food for 
thought ; and the wonder is, how, or in what sense, 
this ‘Son of man’ is now in heaven while He is talking 
on earth with Nicodemus. But He proceeds, apparently, 
to announce some great purpose for which He tame 
into the world: ‘* And as Moses lifted up the serpent 


q 
4 
4 





ATONEMENT. 185 


in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be 
lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him might not 
perish, but have everlasting life.” The impression seems 
to be conveyed that this Son of man is to do something 
by reason of which men “should not perish.” 

The mind of the inquirer recurs to the name by 
which the ‘Son of man’ was first announced, — ** Lamb 
of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” 
What must the hearers of this annunciation have under- 
stood by this term? Was there any thing peculiar in 
their associations with the word ‘ Lamb’ ? 

Their great national celebration had a lamb for its 
central object. It was a sacrifice. Its blood was the 
procuring cause of their salvation on that night which 
is “*much to be remembered,’ when the destroying 
angel in Egypt saw the blood sprinkled on the lintel 
and door-posts of Israelitish dwellings, and passed over 
them when he cut off the first-born of the Egyptians. 
The death of an mnocent victim was necessary to the 
salvation of the Hebrew household; in every one of 
them a lamb must bleed, or, if households were small, 
two might join and use the blood of the same lamb. 
This naturally gives our inquirer some new view of 
the divine character, — suffering, death, and blood being 
required of innocent victims to be the instrument of 
saving the lives of the first-born among nearly three 
millions of people, every ten of whom, upon an average, 
must take the life of one lamb, an almost incredible 


number of victims, therefore, bleeding and‘ dying in one 
16 * : 


186 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


night, to save the first-born of each Hebrew dwelling 
from death. The lamb would, therefore, naturally 
become, with the Jew, an emblem of sacrifice and sub- 
stitution; so that when the Son of man was called 
“the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the 


x 


world,” and his being ‘lifted up” was spoken of as 
that in consequence of which men “ might not perish,” 
it is easy to see that his sufferings and death were, in 
some way, to be a substitution for men. 

Our inquiring friend anxiously turns to the account 
of the Messiah’s death. He notes the stupendous mira- 
cles which accompanied it. The account of it by John 
is full of prophecies fulfilled. He tells us what one 
‘Scripture saith,’ and another, and how it was fulfilled. 
Inquiring for these prophecies, the stranger is directed 
to Isaiah, and to the fifty-third chapter, which seems 
now to him like a description of the crucifixion itself 
by an eye-witness. He is also pointed to that passage 
where an Ethiopian eunuch, sitting in his chariot, is 
reading the same passage, and asks the Evangelist 
Philip, “I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet 
this ? — of himself, or of some other man? Then 
Philip opened his mouth and began at the same scrip- 
ture and preached unto him Jesus.’ Isaiah proceeds 
to say, ‘“* All we like sheep have gone astray, we have 
turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath 
laid on him the iniquity of us all.” “ He was wounded 
for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, 


the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by 


ATONEMENT. 187 


his stripes we are healed.” Turning over the prophets, 
the inquirer reads in Daniel, “ And after threescore 
and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off; but not for 
himself.”’ 

But He died. Was that the end of Him? Lo, He 
rises from the dead; He stands on a mountain with his 
friends: ‘“* All power is given unto me, in heaven and 


in earth ;” 


‘‘oo ye therefore and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” ‘He that believeth 
-and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth 
not shall be damned.” Is the commission executed ? 
His Apostles begin to offer pardon in his name to all 
men; “neither,” say they, “is there salvation in any 
other; for there is none other name under heaven 
given among men whereby we must be saved.” Has 
He appointed any ordinances? One;—it is a memo- 
rial of his death, with symbols of his body and _ blood, 
to be observed by all men until his final coming to 
judge all mankind at his bar. 

But wonder upon wonder succeeds. The new religion 
and its friends being persecuted, the chief persecutor, 
in the full tide of his career, is arrested by a voice 
from heaven, is kindly treated, is made the preéminent 
friend and advocate of this Jesus and his religion. He 
writes to believers in Rome, and Corinth, Ephesus, 
Galatia, Thessaly, and Philippi. Here is a man who 
believes something, and positively ; he declares this gos- 


pel to be essential to salvation, and that any perversion 


188 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


of it subjects a man to the curse of God. ‘ Though 
we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel 
unto you than that which we have preached unto you, 
let him be accursed.” That this might not seem an 
ill-considered expression, he repeats it, in the same words. 
Some of his converts in Galatia are seduced from the 
faith. He writes to them, and first establishes the 
proofs of his own apostleship, showing that he received 
it directly from Christ, not having seen the other apos- 
tles for three years after his conversion; and then he 
breaks out: ‘‘O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched 
you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose 
eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, cru- 
cified among you.” But he was not literally “ cru- 
cified’’ in Galatia; he means, — The prominent idea 
of my preaching among you was the crucifixion of 
Christ; and he goes over the whole ground of salva- 
tion, and shows it to be not by merit, but by pardon 
and free justification through faith in the suffermgs and 
death of the Son of God. He shows how that Abraham . 
was justified by his faith ; ‘that “the Scripture, fore- 
seeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, 
preached before the Gospel unto Abraham ;” that 
‘‘ Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
being made a curse for us ;” and thus having expounded 
afresh the doctrine of salvation through a suffering 
Redeemer in this Epistle, which seems to have been 
written expressly for those who had begun to doubt 


respecting the atonement, he says, ‘* Stand fast, there- 


ATONEMENT. 189 


fore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us 
free.” ‘Christ is become of none effect unto you, 
whosoever of you are justified by the law.” —‘ But is 
it so, that if we do as well as we can, and worship 
God according to the dictates of our consciences, and 
continue to be Jews in our practice, we may not be 
saved?’ ‘¢ Not if you know better and disobey,’ he 
seems to reply; ‘and now [I tell you the way of God 
more perfectly. ‘God forbid that I should elory, save 
in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” ’ 

The inquirer, we may suppose, is by this time satisfied 
as to what constitutes the distinguishing peculiarity of 
the Christian system; but, for confirmation, he is pointed 
to the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the doctrine is 
taken into the hands of a master, who, by the help of 
the long age of types and shadows, illustrates and enforces 
the doctrine of salvation by the suffermgs and death 
of the Lamb of God. There is. no writing which 
begins in a more elevated strain, and proceeds with a 
more majestic march, than this: ‘ God, who at sundry 
times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the 
fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken 
unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all 
things, by whom also he made the worlds; who, being 
the brightness of his glory and the express image of his 
person, and upholding all things by the word of his 
power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat 
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being 
made so much better than the angels as he hath by 


190 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” 
Then says he, “we see Jesus, who was made a little 
lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned 
with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God 
should taste death for every man.” ‘“ For the suffer- 
ing of death.” Death, then, was not simply an incident, 
nor an accident, of his life, nor merely “the debt of 
nature ;”’ but the great purpose of his coming was, to 
die. Not so with men; but this Infinite One became 
flesh to die. In pursuance of this fundamental truth, 
the writer turns the whole sacrificial dispensation, priest, 
altar, victim, into a prophecy of this death, and he 
makes it the end and fulfilment of the whole, as the 
flower or fruit is the accomplishment of a plant’s life, 
or, to use his own inspired figure, as an object is the 
fulfilment of its shadow. In that one figure, of the 
‘shadow,’ not used, be it observed, as a_ transient 
metaphor, but treated in an exhaustive manner, con- 
trary to all rules as to the use of rhetorical figures 
when mere expression or rhetoric is the object in the 
writer’s mind, he shows that the whole sacrificial system 
was a “shadow,” with Christ and his atoning sacrifice 
behind it projecting that shadow. The Lamb of God 


and his sacrifice were coming; they threw their 


i) 
‘“‘shadow’”’ before them; the shadow was, ‘“ sacrifices 
-and offerings for sin’’; if these were the ‘ shadow” 
of “the things to come,” of course the things to come 
were themselves ‘sacrifice and offering for sin,” since 
the ‘“*shadow” must duly represent that which pro- 


jects it. 


ATONEMENT. 191 


It violates the most common laws of interpretation 
to a degree which could never be justified in ordinary 
speech, to represent the old dispensation as a system 
of sensuous observances constructed for the taste and 
capacity of a rude people, and Christianity as merely 
borrowing illustration from this old scheme to assist the 
understanding of the converts. No one can maintain 
this theory with any plausible arguments in the face 
of the following deliberate, studied declaration of the 
reverse: “ For Christ is not entered into the holy places 
made with hands, which are the figures of the true; 
but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence 
of God for us; nor yet that he should offer himself 
often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place 
every year with the blood of others; for then must he 
often have suffered since the foundation of the world; 
but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared 
to put away sin by the’ sacrifice of himself. And as it 
is appointed unto all men once to die, but after that the 
judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins 
of many.” 

With the same particularity, the writer shows that 
the high-priest was the “shadow” of Christ; not that 
Christ the “teacher,” the “example,” the ‘guide,’ is 
presented by bold metaphors in accommodation to the 
old system, but that the great official personage of the 
old system was ‘ shadow,” ‘ outline,” thrown forward 
by a divine and infinite High Priest who, in the fulness 


of time, would atone and make intercession for us, ‘* not 


192 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


with the blood of others, but ‘“‘ by his own blood.” Not 
to quote further on this point, let us merely consider 
the literal emphatic assertion of the sufferings and death 
of Christ as being instead of sacrifices: ‘ Wherefore, 
when he cometh into the world he said, Sacrifices 
and offerings and burnt offerings thou wouldest not — 
but a body hast thou prepared me.— He taketh away 
the first that he may establish the second.— By the 
which will we are sanctified through the offering of the 
body of Jesus Christ once for all.” 

The Apostle Peter speaks of the se as ‘ search- 
ing what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ 
which was in them did signify when it testified beforehand 
the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.” 
He tells us we are ‘‘ redeemed — with the precious blood 
of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without 
spot.” ‘Who his own self bare our sins in his own 
body on the tree: —by whose stripes ye were healed.” 

So, as the inquirer turns the pages of the Epistles, 
he finds Christ, the atoning Saviour, alluded to in that 
common and incidental way which influences the mind 
of a candid reader as much as direct assertion. He 
began: the imquiry with the beloved disciple. He comes 
to the last book of the Bible, and finds the same disciple 
finishing and sealing his testimony in exile. His book 
is full of the Son of God, on the throne of heaven, 
worshipped, the crowns of redeemed men at his feet, 
swaying the sceptre of universal empire, but still conde- 


scending, and saying to every child of Adam: “ Behold, 


ATONEMENT. 193 


I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my 
voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and 
will sup with him, and he with me.” But what was 
the first impression which the first glimpse of Christ 
in heaven made on this seer? ‘And I beheld, and 
lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, 
and of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain.’ 

Thus we have seen Christ announced to the world, 
at his appearing, as the Lamb of God. He was proph- 
esied of as such, He declared himself to be such, He 
suffered and died, was preached, believed on, loved, 
and is adored in heaven, as Lamb of God. He was 
“lifted up’? on a cross; He himself uses the double 
meaning in that expression to signify his exaltation as 
a Saviour, and as the object of universal worship. 

It has also appeared in these scriptural representa- 
tions of Christ that there is a view of Him, whatever 
it may be, which is declared to be essential to salvation. 
We must try every thing concerning Christ, therefore, 
by this test. This will help us to reduce the number 
of systems which are proposed for our acceptance. If 
one says of his system, You may believe it or not, and 
you will, in any event, be saved ;— he does not ‘speak 
like Christ and the Apostles. Honest endeavors in 
ignorance are accepted, but knowledge makes unbelief 
inexcusable. It will be well to bear this in mind in 
all our inquiries. 

We have seen that atonement by sacrifice was the 


only way, formerly, of forgiving sin; we are expressly 
17 


194 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


informed that this was so. The following distinguishinz 
passage makes emphatic mention of this by contrasting 
two things—the merely ceremonial, and. the expiatory ; 
— ‘and almost all things are by the law purged with 
blood ; and without shedding of blood is no remis- 
sion,’ —in which passage the absolute necessity of 
blood in atonement is in antithesis to the exceptional 
omission of it In mere purifications. 

We have seen that Christ is expressly declared to be 
substituted for all such things; that he came in their 
place, as a thing approaching us supplants its shadow. 
We will next consider the nature of the atonement, to 
make which, as the fulfilment of all these things, was 


the great object of his coming. 


X. 


ATONEMENT. 


CONTINUED. 


7" ee 


«th 


cag fork 


: 
. 


7% 
5 
. ‘ee oi 
- ere fF “ae of 
, i 
: & : ‘ , 
MiPey ¥ ‘ 1 ’ ie 
4 1 
7 , » # in 
' per’ i 4 
9 , 
é a us 
6 
, } ’ be f 
) 
. 
i 1] : . 
Yi) 
4 . 
' , ? 7 ’ 
e : ‘ . 
a7 } me ¥ 
’ > Ls 
Tre ea 


1 


Pe DEREK OT, 


the a 
+o 
wy r 
Me _ 
A : j : 
4 


= 


Lae 3 
, he 
‘ 
7 





a 
y < Oe i Vag 4 4 ‘ 
rr’ rn? ee wy, % J : 
i ” . “ : “i Le ; At 
; a : a : 
cad. a el am 
‘hit Oe Page ae oS Ue ie 
i ad ‘Ss, ee | bs : i? 3 
, « ~~ - 
‘ | j io? nt ‘ = : 
iA Pe ~ | wis Li > " 
' 9 wit Zz a2. oy ee a a 
i la heme rae oe 
7 ‘ th! Co _ if 
( i , a @ ¥ 4, - ae We ) 7 re 
(at aC ee 
| 2 Eh eb Whitham Ae rs 
' if un Aa nes mal - , 
ia i. : <i * 
- Ousy Bs ao | 


xe 


ATONEMEN T—ConNTINUED. 


ITS NATURE. 


(OME, granting that atoning sacrifices for sin were 

a part of the former dispensation, take the ground 
that they were adapted to a rude state of society, but 
that in the present state of the world sacrifice-for sin 
is as useless as they declare it to be repugnant. 

That Christ directed his Gospel to be preached to 
every creature according to the Scriptures of the proph- 
ets, for the obedience of faith, among all nations, none 
will deny. But now the question arises as to the 
nature of the representations made in “the Scriptures 
of the prophets”? concerning Christ. If any thing is 
palpably true, it is, that the writers of the New Testa- 
ment, and Christ himself, are continually referring to 
the prophets as being “fulfilled” by Him. This were 
absurd if those prophets had themselves fulfilled their 
design in being outgrown by the age. But when Paul 


directs a young Christian minister as to his studies, he 
17 * 


198 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


places “‘all Scripture” before him as still “ profitable,” 
‘that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished 
unto every good work.” 

It has been publicly said that “the New Testament 
should no more be bound in the same volume with the 
Old Testament, than a volume of American History 
with that of Herodotus.” Paul was evidently of a 
different mind. The Old Testament was not, in his 
view, obsolete, for then he would have directed Tim- 
othy to wait for the New Testament before he began 
to preach Christ. An exploded system of astronomy 
would not now be given to students for a text-book, 
nor would a guide-book of travel, written before steam- 
power came into use, be thought suitable for modern 
travellers. All the disesteem and neglect of the Old 
Testament which prevail in some quarters at the present 
day, are not inappropriate if the ancient sacrifices, and 
the fundamental idea in them of atonement for sin, 
be outgrown by the world. 

Turning to the few last verses of the first chapter 
of the Epistle to the Romans, we find Paul describing 
the moral condition of the world in his day. We have 
in these verses a description of the lands of Plato and 
Demosthenes, of Cicero and Seneca. ‘The people of 
Greece and Rome surely prove that “culture”? cannot 
bring men into a state of acceptance with God. 

But in this Epistle, Paul tells us that he does not 
describe one age, nor one class of men; but that “nc 


flesh shall be justified’? before God on the ground of 


ATONEMENT. 199 


their works; that “every mouth” may be ‘“ stopped,” 
‘‘and the whole world become guilty before God.” 
God alone can fix the terms of pardon. It is not 
for the transgressor against any law to determine 
whether he shall be forgiven, nor in what way. 

And when God has appointed the way of forgive- 
ness, it would be strange if there should not be, as 
‘there are in all other things connected with his admin- 
istration over us, some things which are unfathomable. 
What relations to the other parts of his empire our 
forgiveness may have, we cannot tell, but involving, 
as it does, the principles of justice and mercy, regard 
must of course be had to other interests in the universe 
besides our own. The principle which lay at the 
foundation of ancient sacrifices was substitution ; — the 
victim suffered in place of the sinner. ‘This is called 
vicarious atonement, the word being derived from the 
Latin word vice, — instead of. When we speak of 
the suffermgs of Christ being a wicarious atonement, 
we mean, they were in the stead of the sinner’s pun- 
ishment, and not merely for example and persuasion. 
But what proportion is there between the death of 
a ram, a lamb, a scape-goat, and sin? Surely, none; 
we are expressly told that the blood of bulls and of goats 
could never take away sin; for then, the Apostle says, 
they ‘‘ would not have ceased to be offered.’’ This is 
a conclusive proof that they were employed, while they 
continued, in connection with the forgiveness of sin, 


but were, for some reasons, incomplete, or not in 


200 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


themselves efficacious. They were, nevertheless, the 
occasion, and one of the terms, of pardon. 

Now we come again to the question whether these 
sacrifices, and the principle involved in them, of the 
substituted suffering of others in the place of the sinner, 
were annihilated, no more to come into mind except 
as helpful illustrations to people in a transition state 
from the “gross practices” of sacrifice to the “ higher 
culture’’ of a more refined age. All such phraseology 
and the ideas contained in it involve the melancholy 
error that we have advanced in morality beyond the 
Hebrews, and that human nature now is more refined 
and cultivated. Paul, in return, declares that the He- 
brews are no “‘ better’? than the Gentiles. ‘* What then, 
are we better than they? No, in no wise; for we have 
before proved, both Jews and Gentiles, that they are 
all under sin.” His object in saying this, which he 
insists upon and establishes with such demonstrative evi- 
dence, is, to show that all nations and all ages alike 
need the principle of vicarious atonement in their inter- 
course with God, however superior some may be to 
the rest at carving in marble and painting in oils; and 
that God deals with them all upon this principle when 
He forgives their sins. Instead of its being annihilated, 
he shows that the principle of substitution, or vicarious- 
ness, was set forth by the use of victims under the 
Jaw for the purpose of preparing the world for the 
better understanding and higher appreciation of it in 


the offering up of “the body of Jesus Christ once for 


ATONEMENT. 201 


all.’ We may, if we choose, set aside the Epistles 
of Paul as erroneous, or as propounding sentiments 
which are obnoxious to what are called the human 
instincts, as, for example, that God cannot forgive sin 
without an atoning sacrifice; but that Paul declares 
Christ and his death to be a fulfilment, the carrying 
out, of the principle, applymg to all times and to all 
conditions of men, is manifest, unless he utterly fails 
as a master of language by overloading his meaning 
with cumbrous metaphors, drawn, too, from that which 
some now say is repugnant to the instincts of well- 
informed human nature. 

But granting that Paul meant to teach that the prin- 
ciple of sacrifice for sin was to be perpetual, through 
the sufferings and death of Christ (reserving the further 
proof of this for another place), How is the death of 
Christ an atonement? And what propriety is there in 
it? How could his sufferings and death be an equivalent 
for the punishment of sin, or a substitution for per- 
fect obedience to the law? How is this consistent with 
the parental character of God? Do fathers deal with 
their children on such a principle? These questions 
are continually rising in the thoughts of many in con- 
nection with this subject. Let them be considered 
candidly and patiently. 

The doctrine is this: The sufferings and death of 
Jesus Christ are a substitution for the endless punish- 
ment of all who truly believe on Him. 


This is a simple proposition. There is no mystery 


202 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


in the doctrine until we attempt to inquire into things 
connected with it which are not revealed. All which 
is essential to salvation is as simple and plain as was 
the laying of the sinner’s hand upon the head of 
the victim, and offering up the victim’s life, which, by 
God’s appointment, was instead of the punishment which 
the sinner should have suffered. We cannot view the 
scriptural representations of the sufferings and death of 
Christ too literally; mdeed, Jesus Christ is more lit- 
erally and more fully a substitution for the sinner than 
a victim could ever be; so that instead of feeling jealous 
of ourselves lest we strain the emblem and push the 
type too far, we ought rather to fear lest we withhold 
somewhat from a perfect acceptance of Christ, as, in 
all respects, dying for us, redeeming us by his blood. 
Let it be repeated, nothing can be more literally a sub- 
stitution for another than the sufferings and death of 
Christ are for our punishment. 
~ On a hill near Jerusalem, One dies by crucifixion. 
That death is the ground on which God has ever par- 
doned sin and will pardon it. The “ Lamb,” we are 
told, was “slain from the foundation of the world; ’’ — 
the meaning is,— the government of the world began 
with the atonement in view; it was administered from 
the beginning under the influence of the atonement to 
be made by Christ. 

Whoever feels that he is a sinner and seeks forgive- 
ness, must confess that he is lost and ruined, and he 


must ask for pardon on the ground of the Saviour’s 


ATONEMENT. 208 


sufferings and death on his behalf. Doing this, he is 
freely and fully forgiven. To illustrate this, we may 
take a dying malefactor, who, in despair of all other help, 
throws himself upon his Redeemer, even while the fatal 
cord is round his neck, or his hands and feet are nailed 
to a cross. Believing in that moment in Christ as the 
substitute for his endless punishment and the procuring 
cause of pardon through his sufferings and death, the 
malefactor receives forgiveness as freely and fully as 
he who in health and strength repents, and has a life 
before him in which to testify his obligations. Such 
is salvation by grace, through faith. This we under- 
stand to be the Gospel. It is level to the comprehension 
of the dying child; it has mysteries ‘“‘into which angels 
desire to look.” It was this which gave all their efficacy 
to ancient sacrifices; they derived their value from it, 
as truly as a bank note derives its value and currency 
from the coin which it represents. Few think of that 
coin while they are using the paper note, and fewer 
still understand the connection between the two; so it 
may have been with many who offered sacrifices, — 
they may not have understood clearly their relation to 
that which gave those sacrifices their value and efficiency. 

But it will be said, “* May we not be allowed to ask, 
without being accounted sceptical, and without wish- 
ing to intrude into things beyond human knowledge, 
how the sufferings and death of one human being are, 
in any sense, an atonement and propitiation for the sin 
of the whole world?”’ 


204 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Is Christ ‘“‘a human being” and no more? Now 
we shall perceive that the question of his Deity is not 
a useless speculation, but that it has infinite importance. 
Who is dying upon yonder cross? Should God tell 
us that He will accept the sufferings and death of a 
mere man as an atonement for sin, we could properly 
make no objection. Reason must judge of the evidence 
which establishes such a disclosure; but how or why 
it could be so, is a question which might not be submitted 
to our judgment. 

We assume that which we have heretofore endeavored 
to prove, namely, that the Lord Jesus Christ is Supreme, 
underived Deity in one of its incomprehensible distinc- 
tions, united with a perfect man,—two natures in one 
person; and that this one Person made atonement by 
voluntarily suffering the death of the cross. Very 
many things were contributory to this, such as his 
humbling himself to be made flesh, his obedience, his 
sufferings; but his dying is the one essential act. by 
which he atoned for sin. ; 

We rely for proof of this on such passages as these: 
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only- 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish, but have everlasting life.”’”—‘ The Son of 
man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, 
and to give his life a ransom for many.’? ‘* Whom God 
hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
blood.” ‘In whom we have redemption through his 
blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” ‘* While we were 


ATONEMENT. 205 


yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the 
ungodly.” ‘God commendeth his love toward us in 
that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” 
‘‘ Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from 
wrath through him.” He “loved me, and gave him- 
self for me.” ‘Ye were not redeemed with corruptible 
things, as silver and gold, —but with the precious blood 
of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish.” “ W orthy is 
the Lamb that was slain ;’’—‘* Thou art worthy, for 
thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood 
out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” 

The Scriptures enter into no explanations on this 
subject. We are told, indeed, that this propitiation was 
made “that God might be just and the justifier of him 
which believeth in Jesus.” We are everywhere taught 
the displeasure of God against sin, and are told that it 
was “Jesus that delivered us from the wrath to come;”’ 
— that ‘we shall be saved from wrath through him; ” 
that he that believeth in the Son “shall not come into 
condemnation.” And we are constantly assured that 
God provided this way of saving us; that it was because 
‘¢He so loved the world;’’ and the contrast is drawn 
between man and fallen angels ; — ‘for verily he took 
not on him the nature of angels” (literally, he did 
not lay hold of angels), “‘but the seed of Abraham.” 
The sinner is encouraged to approach God, because 
‘*God is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, 
, 


not imputing their trespasses unto them;” and it is 


said, ‘having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter 
18 


206 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


into the holy of holies by the blood of Jesus, — let 
us draw near.” 

It is wrong to think of God as implacable, and of 
Christ as interposing and prevailing upon Him to let | 
Him take the sinner’s place; nor are we to think of 
Christ as having taken us out of the hands of an angry 
Judge, and that to Christ alone we owe our pardon; 
that God was a stern creditor who needed to be satis- 
fied, and that Christ was our true friend who kindly 
discharged the claim. 

The death of Christ was not the procuring cause 
of willmgness on the part of God to forgive sin; it 
was the means chosen and appointed by God himself 
by which it would be consistent for Him to forgive sin. 

It is nowhere represented as the object of the atone- 
ment to make God willing to pardon. A great mistake 
is often made in so representing it. The Bible, like 
other books, employs dramatic representations to impress 
~the truth most forcibly upon the mind. The second 
Psalm, which represents a colloquy between the Father 
and the Son, and the tenth of Hebrews, where the Son 
addresses the Father, and other well-known instances, 
are illustrations of the same thing. But the truth which 
underlies all this, is, that ‘* God so loved the world that 
he gave his only-begotten Son.” ‘* And we have seen 
and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the 
Saviour of the world.” 

The importance of this representation, namely, that 


redemption is the work of the Father equally with 


ATONEMENT. 207 


the Son, is seen when we reflect how singular it would 
be, and what a proof of earnest love toward us, for one 
at variance with us to go and make arrangements for 
reconciliation. Complying with his offered terms of 
peace, we could neither say nor feel that he had been 
prevailed upon to be reconciled; and therefore we 
see, if God provided a way of pardon, that He is ‘not 
willing that any should perish, but that all should come 
to repentance.” 

Nothing is more repugnant to many than the idea 
of an ‘“‘atonement”’ for sin, —that God should be rep- 
resented as needing it in order to forgive; that it 
should have consisted in such a dreadful sacrifice, the 
surrender of ‘the only-begotten”? and ‘ well-beloved 
Son;” that his sufferings and death should be regarded 
as an equivalent for the punishment of sinners; and 
that the want of personal righteousness should in any 
sense be compensated for by the acts of another. 

Yet it is not denied that the phraseology of the 
New Testament abounds with such representations; and 
the explanation of some is, that Jewish writers naturally 
fell into that way of expressing themselves from having 
been long addicted to sacrificial observances. It is 
said that they could not be expectéd to abandon those 
associations of ideas which were interwoven with their 
religious practices; that if they endeavored to lay them 
aside they would still tincture their thoughts ; their 
writings would ‘continue to show the ritualistic school 


in which their authors had been trained. 


208 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


There is one complete answer to this in the mind 
of every one who can understand and appreciate the 
character of the Apostle Paul. No trait in that noble 
man is more conspicuous and more wonderful than 
his perfect deliverance from all Jewish prejudices and 
attachments. Never was there an instance, perhaps, 
in which the human mind was so completely exorcised 
of all denominational bias and of preferences for old, 
familiar habits lingering about the mind and projecting 
their hues upon any subjects which happened to be 
in hand. His protestations to those whom he addresses 
with regard to the utter inefficiency of the ancient 
sacrifices and ritual observances of every kind in our 
approaches to God, show that he did not still think 
in the old channels through invincible attachment or 
even habit. Indeed, we could prove this in another 
way. We might confidently ask, Would Paul go to 
the Romans and preach Judaism? No more than he 
would address them in Hebrew. His doctrine was 
“that Judaism was superseded by Christianity ; would 
he employ the symbols of a system which he was 
trying to put aside while seeking to insinuate the 
new religion into those to whom Judaism was abhor- 
rent? Yet to the Romans he speaks of the sufferings 
and death of Christ precisely as though he were speak- 
ing to Jews. So in addressing the Galatians and the 
Ephesians, and, which is still more noticeable, the 
Corinthians. For we know that Corinth, “the eye 
of Greece,” was in Paul’s day the city of lecturers 


ATONEMENT. 2()9 


and schools in every department of learning and art, 
and that as to all possible forms of pleasure it was the 
Paris of the pagan world. But Paul says to the 
Corinthians, “And I, brethren, when I came to you, 
came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, de- 
claring unto you the testimony of God, for I deter- 
mined not to know any thing among you save Jesus” 
‘Christ and him crucified.” In view of such consid- 
erations it is difficult to see how an intelligent man 
ean think that the New Testament is, in its sacrificial 
language, merely an accommodation to ancient and 
exploded rites. 

Take such a passage as the chapter in Romans which 
begins thus: ‘¢ Therefore, being justified by faith, we 
have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 
Then it is shown how by one man we fell, and how by 
one man we were redeemed ; ‘ who was delivered for our 
offences, and raised again for our justification.” ‘ Who 
is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died.” — 
‘¢ When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God 
by the death of his Son.’>—‘ When we were yet 
without strength, in due time Christ died for the 
ungodly.””»—‘“ For scarcely for a righteous man _ will 
one die,’ —‘ but’’—‘* while we were yet sinners, Christ 
died for us.’’ —‘* Being justified by his blood, we shall 
be saved from wrath through him.””—To the Corin- 
thians he says, “I delivered unto you first of all that 
which {I also received, how that Christ died for our 


sins, according to the Scriptures.” Think of such 
18 * 


210 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


things being said in Rome and Corinth, such perpetual 
allusions to the death, the sufferings, and the blood 
of Christ, if all which the writer meant was the moral 
precepts, or the example, or the doctrines, of Christ. 
He has professedly repudiated Judaism; he would not 
be constantly using, nor obtruding upon his fastidious 
hearers, the symbols of the system which had been done 
away. And therefore, when we find him constantly 
insisting upon the sufferings, the death, the blood of 
the Son of God, as the foundation of pardon and salva- 
tion, it must be that it is because these are literally 
the ground of acceptance with God, the old system 
having been designedly in preparation for it, and the 
language of its ritual being still the most impressive 
mode of conveying to the human mind vivid conceptions 
of the way to be saved. 

A modern scheme of ‘ Atonement,’’ which is fre- 
quently proposed to explain the scriptural representa- 
tions, is this: God is willing to pardon sin upon the 
ground of repentance alone. He therefore appointed 
Christ to come as his special messenger; and after a 
life of spotless purity, and having set a perfect example, 
and leaving to the world a perfect system of morals 
and instructions concerning the true character of God, 
he died in attestation of all, showing thereby his love 
to us, and the Father’s love to us, and so assuring us 
that God is perfectly willing to pardon sin upon repent- 
ance. 

This scheme makes the death of Christ merely an 


ATONEMENT. 211 


incident, though an important one, in his work. The 
Scriptures evidently reverse this order. It is his death 
which has the preéminence. He “came — to give 
his life a ransom for many.” We “have redemption 
through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” We 
‘are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus 
Christ once for all.” He “ washed us from our sins in 
his own blood.” We might fill pages with such phrase- 
ology. To call it ‘ metaphor,” ‘ accommodation,” 


> is not to deal with language 


‘‘mere Jewish phrases,’ 
as we do in every other case. We always regard the 
figurative language of one who is in earnest as indi- 
cating an effort to express most vividly and forcibly 
the meaning which the figures naturally convey. We 
never reject the figurative, impassioned words of a man 
as mere metaphor. 

Neither does it do justice to the abounding phrase- 
ology of Scripture on this subject to say that Christ 
died in the cause of mankind, like a patriot, or 
martyr. To see this, let us but substitute the name 
of Stephen, for example, in 7 passages which speak of 
Christ as dying for us, redeeming us by his blood. All 
would at once feel the inconsistency in so doing. 

In reply to the representation that an atonement 
was necessary to make it consistent for God to pardon, 
it is said that instead of being necessary in any way 
to enable the divine Ruler to pardon us, it was we who 
needed to be reconciled, and therefore the only effect 
which the death of Christ was intended to have upon 


212 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES 


us, was, to make us willing, not to assist the divine 
administration. ‘* Be ye reconciled to God.’ Hence, 
it is said, the atonement is merely an at-one-ment, a 
means to persuade us to be reconciled. 

The use of the term ‘ reconciled,” by Christ himself, 
shows us that it is properly applied to the offending 
party when not he, but the offended one, needs to be 
satisfied. The argument just quoted is, that God does 
not need the atonement, because it is we who are called 
upon to be “reconciled” to God. But Christ says to 
an offender, in the case of variance with another, — * if 
thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift 
before the altar, and go and be reconciled to thy brother.” 
This, be it observed, assumes that to satisfy another is 
being reconciled” to him. Hence we may be said to 
be “reconciled to God by the death of his Son”? when 
satisfaction is made to God for our offences. In being 
“reconciled”? to our brother, it is not enough that we 
lay aside our enmity,—we must make satisfaction to 
hen ; 

But many protest that it is not consistent with proper 
conceptions of God to think of Him as needing any thing 
to make it suitable for Him to forgive. In saying this, 
we assume too much for our finite understanding. God 
must tell us whether it is consistent to forgive sin with- 
out an equivalent for its penalty. If He requires a 
sacrifice, or if He provides one, in order that He may 
forgive, He does no more now than when He told 
the friends of Job that his wrath was kindled against 


ATONEMENT. — O15 


them, and that they must go to his servant Job, who 
would offer sacrifices in their behalf. Let us not be 
found prescribing to our Maker on what principles He 
shall govern the world. Let not a sinner dictate the 
terms and the method of forgiveness. A 

But some say that this whole plan of atonement makes 
confusion in their conceptions concerning the Godhead. 
The Father sends the Son to atone; but the Son is God 
equally with the Father and the Holy Spirit. 

It may be useful to apply here the remark which was 
made in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity, that 
instead of wondering that we are confused by any con- 
ceptions of God, the wonder should be that the most 
simple conception of Him does not discompose our minds. 
For there is as much, to say the least, to confound us 
in the thought of existence without any beginning, as 
there can be in any thing which may be revealed con- 
cerning Him. If one is troubled by the thought of a 
distinction of persons in the Godhead, let him reflect 
if it be less overwhelming and distracting to think of 
an Infinite God who always was, and of whose being 
there can be said to have been no cause. This con- 
tradicts all our experience and observation; and there 
is nothing within us which answers to it. 

We must therefore resort to revelation on this subject. 
Finding, as we have endeavored to show in previous 
lectures, that there is that which we call a distinction 
in the Godhead, we are certainly assisted by it in see 


ing how an atonement can be made. We refer now 


214 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


merely to our conceptions respecting the subject, and we 
say that, if sin could not be forgiven without an atone- 
ment, it is difficult to see how an atonement could be 
made, which could be in its nature divine, unless there 
were some personal distinction in the Godhead. The 
idea would, however, be more suitably expressed, if we 
say that the personal distinctions in the Godhead make 
it seem practicable that a divine atonement should be 
made. We do not speculate, nor offer conjectures on 
this great mystery of godliness. We are to take the 
facts as they appear in the New ‘Testament, which 
seem to us to be these, that of the Three who are 
One God, One (whether from original causes related 
to his divine nature as distinguished from that of the 
Two, we cannot tell) acts as Lawgiver, and represents 
to our conceptions Gop, without reference to personal 
distinctions. ‘That it is a ‘* Person” of the Godhead 
who thus acts, has strong confirmation in the fact that 
the Saviour does not use the word God in addressing 
Him, but usually “ather; moreover, it is noticeable that 
Paul, in speaking of God and Christ in connection 
with each other, very frequently adds the word Father 
to the word God. He does not speak of ‘ God and 
Christ,” but it is, for example, ‘‘ God, even the Father, 
and our Lord Jesus Christ.”” We do not see that the 
offices which the Father fills are in consequence of any 
original superiority in nature, inasmuch as all divine 
attributes, names, works and worship, are ascribed equally 
to the Three. 


ATONEMENT. 215 


The Father being, officially, Gop, for the purposes 
of redemption, the Second Person becomes the Re- 
deemer, acting in subordination to the Father; and the 
Holy Spirit in subordination to both, as the great 
administrator in the work of redemption. ‘This per- 
sonal distinction makes incarnation practicable, while it 
leaves, on the throne of heaven, to our apprehension, 
One whom we may still regard as Supreme Deity, 
whose law is violated, who makes provision for pardon, 
who sends his Son, who receives confession, and 
repentance, and submission. We must not say that 
redemption could not be made were there but One 
Person in the Godhead; but we do say that the system 
of redemption which is thus represented in the Scrip- 
tures as employing the Sacred Three is to our minds 
infinitely sublime, as well as_ beautifully appropriate, 
awakening in us every affecting and ennobling senti- 
ment of which our nature is capable. It must not be 
forgotten that in saying this we do not speculate; we 
do not insist that things must be as they are, and 
that they cannot be otherwise; but we take them as 
they appear to us in the Bible, and we see in them 
the “‘depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowl- 
edge of God.” 

And we certainly go very far beyond our measure 
when we think to show how it is, in the nature of 
things, that the sufferings and death of Christ are the 
most appropriate method of making an atonement for 


sin. No doubt they are so, or something better would 


216 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


have been employed; but, alas! for our presumption, 
if we think to sit in judgment upon the divine plan, 
pronouncing either that the scheme is imperfect, or, 
on the other hand, that it is, because we so judge, the 
best which could be devised. 

Though we cannot say, from our own power of 
comparison and judging, that this method of atonement 
was, in the nature of things, the best which was pos- 
sible, we see reasons for regarding it as infinitely wise 
and good. 

He who becomes the Redeemer ‘was in the begin- 
ning with God, and was God.” ‘This lays the foundation 
for confidence; it makes men feel that ‘* their Redeemer 
is mighty ;”’ whatever He promises and undertakes is 
guaranteed by his infinite strength, with which all other 
divine attributes associate themselves to fulfil all the 
good pleasure of his will. Men readily pray to Him; 
in moments of shipwreck and sudden fear, for example, 
it is perfectly natural to call on Christ for help; and 
this without any process of reasoning going beforehand, 
but because the Saviour has already commended him- 
self to the confidence of the soul through the revela- 
tions made in the Bible respecting his Godhead. 

If such a Being goes to the cross for us, we feel 
that there is in his view an importance in our salvation 
warranting his interposition; if He interposes, we feel 
that an adequate provision is made for our necessities, 
and, moreover, that He is able to carry into effect his 


design on our behalf. 


ATONEMENT. PALL 


We also feel that not only are our interests regarded 
and provided for, but, which we perceive to be more 
important, the divine character and the interests of 
the divine government are most fully considered. For 
this Redeemer is not one who, touched with sympathy, 
has interfered to save us without due regard to other 
interests; He is God, and will take care that the 
divine glory and all the interests of the universe are 
included when He acts in behalf of one portion of his 
creatures. If He has seen it wise and good thus to 
become our Saviour, it must be that He himself will 
be honored by it, and therefore that it will promote the 
happiness and welfare of other beings, so that forming a 
part of the great plan of divine government, we perceive 
that our salvation through this Divine Mediator, in 
union with the Father and the blessed Spirit, is and 
must necessarily be a plan in which the Godhead is 
engaged, and if so, man, the sinner, becomes an object 
of divine regard to a degree which exalts him to a 
condition far above that from which he fell. 

Compare with this, as a foundation for confidence 
and joy, the sinner’s own consciousness of being sorry 
for sin and his trust in the general or even specific 
promises of pardon to the penitent, which promises, 
his conscience tells him, he forfeits every day by 
imperfection and sin. We need some ground of hope 
and confidence out of ourselves. Our repentance and 
our purposes of reformation, and our endeavors after 


goodness, are no sufficient ground for peace and com- 
19 


218 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


fort; they are rather like a sand-hill to the feet of 
the weary. But this train of remark is related to 
the subject of repentance as a supposed ground of 
pardon and salvation, which is a topic of sufficient 
importance to be considered by itself, inasmuch as 
the acceptableness of repentance alone without atone- 
ment is the theory which is most generally main- 


tained by those who reject the sacrifice of Christ. 


A. few things will be stated here on which there is not 
room to dwell. 

Pardon and. justification are not synonymous. <A 
prisoner pardoned is not thereby “justified.” One is 
‘* justified’? whom the law pronounces “not guilty.” 
‘© Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect ? 
It is God that justifieth.”” ‘ Justification is an act of 
God’s free grace, where He pardoneth all our sins, 
and aecepteth us as righteous in his sight.’’--'This act 
of justifying us, in addition to pardon, is among the 
wonders of redemption. 

Again. There is no transfer of character from Christ 
to us; nor from us as sinners to Christ when suffering 
for us; but an imputation —not an infusion— of merit 
and demerit. 

Again. While the atonement shows the benevolence 
of God, promotes holiness, and does many things con- 
nected with moral government, none of these are the 
primary object of atonement. That object is, Zo sat- 


isfy divine justice. Let no human philosophy make 


ATONEMENT. 219 


us lose sight of this essential object of the Saviour’s 
death. 

The important subject of the extent which it was 
intended that the Atonement should have in actually 
saving men, belongs rather to the doctrine of Election. 
But the question as to its design with regard to all 
mankind, is in place here. If Christ did not suffer 
and die for all mankind, past, present, and to come, 
saved or lost, the plainest and most explicit language 
of the Bible misleads the unsuspecting and_ honest 
reader. But, in the most approved statements of doc- 
trine by those who hold to what is called ‘ Limited 
Atonement,’ there is absolutely nothing which conflicts 
with this great truth. They tell us that limited atone- 
ment refers to the design of the Saviour’s death and 
not to its nature; that its nature is infinite, that it is 
competent for the salvation of all mankind. But they 
ask, What was the design of Christ in dying? Are we 
not to learn this by finding what it will actually accom- 
plish? And what is this but the salvation of those 
who shall be saved? If one says, ‘ Limited Atone- 
ment, then, means only that it will be limited in its ap- 
plication,’ they reply, But it was limited as to its original 
desion; Christ died for his people in a sense in which 
He did not suffer for the lost; if all were to be lost, 
would Christ have died ? 

They tell us that this view of the ‘design’ in the 
infinite sacrifice of Christ strengthens the whole system 


of truth,—confirming the doctrine of Election, exalt- 


220 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


ing the nature of ‘Special Grace,’ and wonderfully 
enhancing the love of Christ for his people. 

This subject, when in controversy, arrays good men 
on opposite sides, one side being jealous lest any limit 
should be given to the Saviour’s death as a propitiation 
for the sins of ‘the whole world, and the other side 
maintaining that to fail of distinguishing between the 
‘‘infinite nature”? and the “particular design” of the 
atonement is to make it a mere ‘ exhibition,’ instead of 
an absolute substitution, — and many other objections of 
the same kind. The subject is well discussed by Tur- 
retin, Vol. II., and by Andrew Fuller, Vol. II., Con- 
versation 3. Mr. Fuller sums up the views cf some 
zealous contestants by saying, in the person of an 
umpire, ‘* The difference between you ought not to pre- 
vent your feeling towards and treating each other as 
brethren. You are agreed in all the great doctrines of 
the Gospel, as, the necessity of an atonement, the ground 
of acceptance with God, salvation by grace only, etc., 
etc., and with respect to ‘particular redemptiou,’ you 
both admit the thing.” Your seeming difference “ may 
be owing either to a difference in your manner of ex- 
pressing yourselves, or to the affixing of consequences 
to a principle which yet are unperceived by him that 
holds it. You are both erring mortals, but both, I 
trust, the sincere friends of the Lord Jesus. Love one 


another.” 


XI. 
ATONEMENT. 
CONTINUED 


19 * 


ied 


o. 





=" ' ’ : \ 
; ' 
4 
ad oe 
' . ) ' “te ah yy) 
/; > 7 ca 
; 5 » eet oy 
iat . Fr Le 
voy ‘ Ptchey 
: , ; 4 
. J Se = 
f> ‘4 
» 3 } 
i 
] 
rf 
- | 
' ry 
= @ 
; of tele 
* 
wi 
— 4 " - 
°. j eh 
be 
Pag 
; es 
Yao! site i ‘A ste 4 
@ ] vy “ +4 By p-yo ee p= rm 
we a ) ‘ ] t ; é 
ae , 1 Vie *~ a ‘ ‘ 
° Cd > @ J 
a: : y 
E —_- 
i puke Ete @i)). - 
wis A , a : 
see 
rs a a mn 7h ah ® *v' ws ‘ & i vibe ia P 7 
vo : - ; | y * 
* - Lh f ¥ ; a x } i, ~ 
ov ae i 
a ‘f= 4 ‘ i 
* 
ie a i ‘ 2 
, Sa: 
s Ae » 
, o,%. ' ry . hy 
’ * 
iy’ Ag. hihi Bit Pe ot Pane al : 
: sees AY! wwe CTY ee el i wy <3 + is aD ay 


= ah We: ste Ss: Pa et i 
: ae e@ . ; 






: ae 


. “> y 


| ee ae 
Pee ae ae 


‘ 
— 
» 


. true, a ae 
mL) Matt “> yh ‘ Ag 


aE 


ATONEMENT—ConrTINUED. 
INSUFFICIENCY OF REPENTANCE — CONCLUSION. 


T is a mistake to suppose that repentance and 

innocence are equivalent. No honest man will offer 
a thing which has been badly damaged, however thor- 
oughly it may have been repaired, as a new article. 
Repentance cannot make it the same as though a 
man had not sinned. Laws have been broken, the 
eternal principles of righteousness have been violated ; 
being sorry for this, and abstaining from it in future, 
cannot recall nor alter the deed. If there were such 
a thing as a meter to mark and record a violation 
of the moral law, it would make its everlasting 
record when a sin was committed, and no change of 
conduct on the part of the sinner could cancel it 
any more than a change of temperature can _ blot 
out the record of the selfregistering barometer. 

How God will consent to regard the sinner in 
view of his sin, is a different question. But even 


should he treat him as though he were innocent, 


224 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


this does not annihilate his having sinned. Hence 
the idea that repentance restores the soul to innocence 
is without foundation; the thing is impossible. And! 
all which can be done is to treat the sinner as though 
he had not sinned. Will the Most High so treat sinful 
men? If so, on what grounds and conditions ? 

Some are ready with this answer: Repentance re- 
stored the prodigal son to the love of his father. ' 
Christ intimates by the parable that repentance will 
have the same effect for us with God. 

It would be unreasonable to expect that every truth 
of religion would be inculcated, or even brought to 
view, in every part of Scripture. If Paul is discours- 
ing on the resurrection of the body, we are not disap- 
pointed if he does not introduce the subject of charity. 
If he is illustrating charity, we do not expect to have 
our attention drawn to the necessity and duty of repent- 
ance. If Christ is teaching us how God feels toward 
penitent sinners, it may not be consistent with unity, or 
with the highest effect in the discourse, to dwell at all, 
in that place, upon other principles concerned in the for- 
giveness of sin. Provided he says nothing inconsistent 
with the belief that there are other principles involved, 
we are satisfied to look elsewhere in order to complete. 
our knowledge of that subject. The mind of Christ 
was filled with the great theme of love toward return- 
ing sinners, sinners of the Gentiles, and also sinners of 
the lowest orders among the Jews who were pressing 


to hear him, while the Pharisees and Scribes murmured 


ATONEMENT. 995 


at him. If the Saviour did not then enunciate the doc- 
trine of atonement, the question will arise, Did he else: 
where teach it? and if he did, He is the best judge 
when and how to enforce it. 

Since it is often said that the parable of the prodigal 
son contains no allusion to the idea of atonement, it 
may be well to say, that the idea is certainly brought 
to view in a form which, with some, is the highest 
possible proof of its truth, —it being evidently demanded 


by the ‘“ instincts bs 


of the prodigal himself. He did not 
say, ‘Father, inasmuch as repentance is the only and 
the. sufficient ground of pardon, see, I have repented 
and returned; I wait, therefore, to be reinstated in my 
privileges as a son.’ Instead of this, he craved atone- 
ment for his sin;—‘‘ make me as one of thy hired 
servants.’ — This is, perhaps, as good an answer as the 
objection referred to requires. 

But. it will be said, ‘Does a good father repulse a 
sobbing child who is thoroughly penitent, by telling 
him, I cannot forgive you unless your innocent brother 
makes some satisfaction to me and to the family for your 
Slee 

If we insist that the relation between God and man 
is strictly identical with the parental and filial relation, 
we shall find it difficult to maintain that theory. The 
analogy soon fails; it holds only under certain conditions. 
To show how utterly inapplicable it is in its wide extent, 
let us recall an illustration already given. Would an 


earthly father, at the first transgression of a married 


226 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


son, expel him and his wife from their home, curse the 
ground which they were to till, set armed guards around 
their former habitation, entail sorrow upon them, till 
death, his own infliction, should close the scene? Such 
is the inspired account of the treatment of our Heavenly 
Father’s first children by his own hand. Surely there 
is imperfection in the analogy of earthly and divine 
parentage; the resemblance is greatly qualified. God 
and man sustain other relations than those of parent 
and child. - 

The truth with regard to the necessity of atonement 
or satisfaction to law and justice, in human affairs, seems 
to be, that as the circle widens, atonement appears to be 
indispensable. A father may safely forgive a penitent 
child, now and then, without inflicting punishment, or 
requiring any thing in the nature of a sin-offering. In 
a school it becomes more hazardous to do so; in a 
college it is still more dangerous ; in the army, or navy, 
it is exceedingly rare, in the State it cannot be permitted. 
Then the law must pronounce its sentence, judgment 
must proceed unless arrested by the Executive. It is 
obvious that men at large are governed by the Most 
High in view of their public relations to Him, such as 
a child cannot sustain to a parent. Surely, His judg- 
ments prove it; and his afflicting hand in our private 
experience sets at nought our ideas of analogy between 
His government and that of earthly parents. 

It is not, therefore, good reasoning for one to remind 


us that if a child comes to a parent with repentance, 


ATONEMENT. | 927 


the parent does not require a brother to offer up his 
happiness or endure pain for him. Let the child grow 
up; let the father be a magistrate; let this son be 
brought before him for arson, or highway robbery ; 
their relation to each other will then be more like that 
of God and the sinner. 

In the treatment of our first parents by their heav- 
enly Father we see how unsafe it is to propose what 
we call our ‘instincts’? as a rule for the divine conduct. — 
We need divine revelation to instruct these instincts 
when they propose to guide us in the knowledge of God. 

For example, when it is said, One does not need 
that an older child should interpose and suffer in order 
to prevail on a good father to pardon a penitent, we 
turn to the Bible, and we find it written: ‘“ My little 
children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not. 
And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the 
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the 
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also 
for the sins of the whole world.” We do not read in 
this passage that nothing but repentance is necessary 
if we sin; we are told of ‘an advocate with the 
Father,’ and “a propitiation,’”’ made by one who 
contemplates ‘the whole world” of mankind as in need 
of ‘advocacy’ with God, and of ‘ propitiation,’ — not 
to persuade God, not to propitiate Him as being now 
indisposed to forgive, but, by the appointment of the 
Father, doing that which makes it consistent for God 


to pardon and save us. 


228 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Repentance is indispensable to pardon. We cannot 
be saved by it, but we cannot be saved without it. 
God has prescribed it as one of the conditions on which 
he will forgive sin. 

The objection to repentance as the ground of forgive- 
ness, is, It does not secure perfect obedience to God. 
In many things we continue to offend; in all we come 
short; and the law of God requires perfectness in him 
who would be saved by obedience. Grant for a moment 
that repentance procures from God full pardon for sin, 
as it does in a family. What would happen if a for- 
given child should sin again, in the very same way, and 
as often, as we sin against God in thought, word, and 
deed? Repentance in a child is supposed to restore 
him not merely to.his father’s favor but also to obedi- 
ence. Our repentance, alas! has no power to secure 
us against repeated and continual sins of omission and 
commission. Especially if we remember that sin is 
any want of conformity unto, as well as transgression 
of, the law of God, we shall perceive that sorrow and 
reformation, however sincere and thorough, leave us 
bankrupt to divine justice; ‘for who can understand 
his errors?”’ “there is none that doeth good, no, not 
one.” Whether divine justice will compound with us 
for our many sins, on the ground of such repentance 
as we exercise, and in doing so violate every known 
analogy in every relation in which men stand to one 
another, is a question to which even reason must give 


a negative answer, while Revelation furnishes this explicit 


ATONEMENT. 929 


statement: ‘** For all have sinned, and come short of 
the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace 
through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith 
in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remis- 
sion of sins that are past through the forbearance of 
God; to declare I say at this time his righteousness 
that He might be just and the justifier of him which 
believeth in Jesus.” 

To strengthen this view, let it be observed, that if 
God cannot now consistently forgive sin without an 
atonement, it is natural to infer that He never could, 
and never did. But the blood and the life of an animal 
could not make God propitious; they did not change 
his feelings, they did not furnish an equivalent for the 
injury committed. Hence we infer that their efficacy 
was due to that which in the fulness of time took their 
place —the sufferings and death of Him who by one 
offering ‘forever perfected them that are sanctified,” 
and ‘ever liveth to make intercession for us.” 

But were there no good and perfect men in all the 
past ages since the fall, who stood on their own righteous- 
ness as the ground of acceptance with God? We know 
what emblazonry of illustrious names and deeds there is 
in the eleventh of Hebrews, where patience as well as 
obedience seem to be presented in their most perfect 
human forms. With regard to none of these worthies 
was it true that they were justified by their good deeds? 


that is, were none of them saved on the same principle 


20 


230 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


that Adam once stood, and,on which angels now stand, 
namely, perfect obedience to the law of God? ‘ 

There is a conclusive answer to this question: God 
has from the beginning appointed sacrifices for sin. 
This, if it can be shown, will help us to decide the 
question on what ground we are to look for pardon and 
justification with God. 

There is no satisfactory way of accounting for the 
slaughter of animals previous to the flood, unless we 
believe in the offering of animal life in sacrifice for sin. 
Animal food was not granted to Adam. His food is 
indicated to him by the Most High in these words: 
“Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed 
which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree 
in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you 
it shall be for meat.” The grant of animal food was 
made to Noah, showing that it had not. been previously 
allowed: ‘‘ Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat 
for you; even as the green herb have I given you all 
things.” 

The large flocks and herds mentioned previously to 
the flood, it is maintained by some, are an argument 
against this view; but their necessary supply of milk 
and wool will sufficiently account for their great num- 
bers. Yet, it is further said, a distinction between clean 
and unclean beasts, was made when Noah entered the 
ark. But, 1. This distinction may have been made in 
written form for those who understood the difference in 


following generations. It is, in the language of the 


ATONEMENT. Dat 


rhetoricians, a case of prolepsis,— something said by 
anticipation. 2. The distinction may have been made 
on entering the ark with a view to the subsequent use 
of animals for food. 8. The distinction may have been 
made to Noah, in reference to the use of animals in 
sacrifice, indicating which should be acceptable. <A 
confirmation of this appears, when it is said, ‘“ And 
Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every 
clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt 
offerings on the altar.” 

It does not seem possible that the idea of worshipping 
God by slaughtering animals eould have suggested itself 
to the human mind. Here is one proof that our ‘“ in- 
stincts’’ are not the test of truth nor the rule of duty. 
God directed and accepted those sacrifices, and we must 
therefore conclude that the idea of shedding blood as an 
atonement for sin was divinely revealed. . On account 
of its prominence in the Old Testament, more than for 
any other reason, many among us repudiate those Scrip- 
tures, and, of course, they repudiate with them the idea 
that the death of the Son of God is an atonement for 
sin. They call the doctrine, “ Blood Theology.” But 
‘almost all things were by the law cleansed with blood ;’ 
and this exceptional mode of statement gives force to the 
declaration which follows, namely, “ and without shedding 
of blood is no remission.” 

Now we come to the written appointment, by the 
Most High, of the way in which he would forgive sin, 


the time having arrived when the usages and observ- 


Tae EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


ances before existing were to be codified. There were 
many gifts, and there were sacrifices of many kinds, 
and for various purposes. But we find prominent 
among them this appointment: ‘ And the Lord spake 
unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin” — (then follow the 
specifications of fraud, theft, false-swearing) ‘he shall 
bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a lamb without 
blemish out of the flock,—and the priest shall make 
an atonement for him before the Lord, and it shall be 
forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in 
trespassing therein.” Repentance, it seems, was not 
enough. The offerimg of the lamb was not in the 
way of a fine. The priest must take it and make 
atonement with it before the Lord. 

All the questions which are so often asked in object- 
ing to the Saviour’s sacrifice, might here be raised: In 
what sense can the death of a lamb be an equivalent 
for a sin? Why cannot God forgive a penitent sinner 
without putting an innocent victim to death? How is 
it consistent with the goodness of God to take the life 
of a lamb when a man has sinned? The only answer 
which can properly be given is, God saw fit to ordain 
sacrifices in connection with the forgiveness of sin. 
This we see still more clearly when we notice the 
reason which God assigns for prohibiting the use of 
blood for food: ‘* And whatsoever man there be of the 
house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among 
you, that eateth any manner of blood, I will even set 


my face against that man, and will cut him off from 


ATONEMENT. pecs f3' 


among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the 
blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to 
make an atonement for your sins; for it is the blood 
that maketh an atonement for the soul. ‘Therefore I 
said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall 
eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth 
among you.” 

Here, among other things, we see that offerings for 
sin are not gifts, nor are they payments, nor fines; it 
is not the costliness of the animal that constitutes the 
satisfaction made by the sinner to God; but it is the 
blood, worthless in itself, and yet most precious as a 
sign of a life sacrificed. This is atonement, and God 
appointed it; for four thousand years the lives of inno- 
cent creatures were taken whenever sin was to be 
forgiven; and it is only for about eighteen hundred 
years that this method of obtaining pardon has not 
been employed. Should all the victims which have 
died for the sins of men be driven in flocks and herds, 
through a principal street of this city, they would be 
several years in passing by. 

Was all this nothing but “ignorance,” ‘ grossness,” 
‘¢ superstition,” ‘¢accommodation to a weak infancy of 
mankind ?” 

The doctrine of substitution as the ground of pardon, 
was taught by the Scape-goat. If it be derogatory to 
the character of God now, to say that he cannot for- 
give the sin of a penitent without a sacrifice, appointed 
and accepted by Him, then this solemn and impressive 

20 * 


234 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


ceremony of the scape-goat made an injurious impres- ’ 
sion. If, however, the Saviour of the world was to 
be, in the fulness of time, a sacrifice for sin, and God 
was educating the world with reference to Him in 
whom all the prophecies and the ritual observances of 
preceding ages were to have their fulfilment, we per- 
ceive divine wisdom and beauty in all the appointments 
of the sacrificial dispensation. 

Questions like the following frequently arise in an 
inquiring mind: Are we to regard sacrifices as making 
the Most High propitious? do they affect his feelings 
in any way toward the sinner? and if this be the 
theory of sacrifice, how is it consistent with the perfec- 
tions of God? 

No one supposes, of course, that the sacrifice of life 
persuades the Almighty to be favorable to men, nor 
that there is any thing like equivalency between a 
transgression and the life of an animal. We account 
for the appointment of sacrifices only by adopting, as 
it seems to us, the plain representations of Scripture 
on that point, for it is not a subject on which human 
reason could give us any original information. 

The race having sinned against God, He purposes 
to pardon sin, remitting the penalty and restoring the 
sinner to holiness in a way consistent with justice, 
by the sacrifice of one who is called the Son of God, 
who was in the beginning with God and was God, 
and who became flesh that he might experience death. 
He who accepts this way of pardon is saved, only and 


ATONEMENT. 239 


. wholly through faith, without merit. Thus the suf: 
ferings and death of the Son of God are in the place 
of a sinner’s punishment. Why the Son of God was 
not manifested immediately upon the fall instead of 
four thousand years afterward, is among the inscrutable 
things of God. For four thousand years, men were 
pardoned on the ground of the coming sacrifice for sin, 
“the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world 4 
by which expression of Scripture we are taught that 
the government of the world began and proceeded with 
the atonement in view. But instead of making known 
the person and offices of the Redeemer, God appointed 
the shedding of blood, the blood of animals, in connec- 
tion with the pardon of sin. He has not seen fit to 
give us his reasons; we only know that ‘ without 
shedding of blood is no remission.’ 

This is repugnant to our natural hearts. The very 
thing which makes it necessary, makes it distasteful. 
We are in need of pardon, and we need to feel it, 
and sacrifice in our behalf makes us feel it; but we 
dislike both the truth that we need it, and the way in 
which it is administered. 

Sacrifice makes us feel the ill-desert of sm; and by 
offering up the life of an innocent creature in the stead 
of his own soul, the sinner confesses that he deserved 
the death which by God’s appointment he inflicts on 
the victim. So when he looks to Christ, he confesses 
that He is bearing the just desert of the sinner, who, 


but for Christ, must have suffered forever. It is one 


236 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


object of the atonement, of course, to produce this effect, . 
but by no means its principal object. Its object is 
related to the universal government of God which is 
exalted and honored, as Christ himself, and the Apostles, 
tell us, by the substitution for the sinner of the Infinite 
Being who satisfied the claims of justice. This, however, 
shows our guilt and ill-desert to be such that the proud 
heart rebels, and sometimes tramples under foot the 
blood of the Son of God. : 

But it is said, Supposing it to be true, as generally 
held, that the man Christ Jesus only, suffered, that is, 
the human part of this mysterious and divine person, 
how is his atonement of infinite worth and efficacy, more 
than if an exalted creature of God had suffered ? 

The union in the person of Christ of the eternal Word, 
who “ was in the beginning,” and who ‘“ was with God,”’ 
and who “‘ was God,” gave to the sufferings and death 
of Christ, an infinite value and importance. Some, 
apparently with a desire to exalt the nature of the 
atoning sacrifice, would persuade us that the divine 
nature suffered. This is inconsistent with the immuta- 
bility of the divine nature itself. We understand the 
representations of divine repentance, change of purpose, 
sorrow at the sins of men, pleasure at their obedience, 
on the part of God, as accommodations to our modes of 
thought ; but pain felt by the very essence of the divine: 
nature itself is generally regarded as violating the divine 
immutability, and therefore is inadmissible. It is not 


necessary to constitute an infinite atonement; for the 


ATONEMENT. pase 


~inhabitation by the Divine Word of One who is suffer- 
| ing the accursed death of the cross, needs no infliction 
of pain upon the Divine Nature to constitute infinite 
condescension. ‘This idea would have some plausibility | 
had it been necessary for Christ to endure sufferings 
equal in amount to those which the redeemed would 
have experienced. ‘This is in the ablest manner confuted 
‘by theologians of the Dutch and Genevan school in 
opposition to Socinianism. Turretin, illustrating the 
sufficiency of Christ to make satisfaction for sin by the 
sufferings of the human nature in his divine Person, 
distinguishes between pecuniary and penal satisfaction. 
He reminds us that while a coin in the hands of a subject 
is as valuable as in the hands of a king, the life of a 
king is a far greater sacrifice than the life of the subject, 
and that many soldiers are exchanged or sacrificed for 
the commander. ‘The sufferings of the finite nature 
in Christ were of infinite value because of the divine 
nature in his Person. We cannot tell what kind or 
degree of suffering is required to satisfy divine justice 
in an atonement. ‘They make unwarranted assumptions 
who say that because Christ did not suffer remorse, nor 
despair, therefore he did not endure that which was 
equivalent to the penalty of the law. We are not 
informed that these things, or the sufferings of the Divine 
nature, are a part of that penalty. 

Thus the Bible, without entering into any explana- 
tions or recognizing any difficulties with respect to the 


two natures in the Saviour, represents Him as a Sacri- 


238 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


fice for sin, speaks of his humiliation, sufferings, death, 
and his blood, as an atonement for sin, and we, in 
receiving Him as such, are to do it with all that sim- 
plicity of faith with which we would offer up a lamb 
for a burnt offering. 

On reading the second part of Butler’s Analogy of 
Revealed Religion, we perceive that the great principle 
of the innocent suffering for the guilty, and of what we 
call vicarious suffering, or suffering endured on account 
of others, runs through the whole system of divine 
providence in this world. Parents suffer on account of 
their children, and children from the sins of their parents ; 
the evil deeds of one member plunge a family circle into 
distress and lasting shame. Animals are food for animals, 
and for man. He who objects that atonement for sin 
by an innocent being is unjust, has a refutation of his 
theory as often as he comes to his table. There, life 
has been taken to nourish his life. 

Thus, out of the universal principle of vicarious suf- 
fering, atonement for sin proceeds, and it is sustained 
by the whole analogy of the divine government of this 
world. 

Even if it were true that the sufferings of Christ 
were forced upon him by the Father, it would be diffi- 
cult to argue against it on the ground of analogy. But 
the Saviour says, “I lay down my life that I may take 
it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down 
of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have 
power to take it up.” ‘* Therefore my Father loveth me, 
because I lay down my life for the sheep.” 


ATONEMENT. j 239 


This subject is the centre of all evangelical truth. 
“IT delivered unto you,” says Paul to the Corinthians, 
“first of all, that which I also received, how that 
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” 
On reading the Bible, passages without number occur 
which accord with the idea of atonement for sin by 
the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ; and to inter- 
pret them as referring to example, teachings, kind 
interest in our behalf, and the mere loss of life as a 
consequence of steadfastly adhering to the truth, or to 
mere benevolence, makes the Bible false to the rules of 
good writing, and to the ordinary laws of language. 

The deeply seated principle in human nature which 
makes it look for and crave atonement. for sin, and 
which has showed itself in the offering of sacrifices in 
every nation at some period of its history, interprets 
the language of the Bible in accordance with the idea 
of atonement as a satisfaction to justice. 

In reply to the feeling that such a sacrifice for sin 
implies too much consideration for such a world as this, 
we have only to think of the capacity for endless joy 
and sorrow in one immortal soul, and we shall find 
cause to reflect whether any thing which God can 
do for man is disproportioned or excessive. Besides, 
though taking place on this little earth, we know not 
how far in the universe the influence of the atonement 
may extend. This earth may be to the universe that 
which one battle field, or even a bridge successfully 


defended, has been to empires. 


240 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Whoever Christ was, and whatever his death was 
intended to effect, all that He was and is, and all that 
He did, was for every individual, as well as for the 
race, and all this is as necessary for the redemption and 
salvation of one as of the race. ‘The principles of the 
divine government would be as really violated in the 
pardon of one without atonement, as in the pardon of 
all. ‘“*He tasted death for every man.” ‘That was 
the true light which lighteth every man that cometh 
into the world.” The Sun which ripens the products 
of one field must be, as it is, ninety-six millions of 
miles from the earth, the plane of the ecliptic must 
be at just such a slope, to ripen those fruits, as though 
it had only that work to do for one husbandman. The 
Sun is all his, the sweet influences of the heavens are 
all his, as though he alone were the object of provi- 
dential care. ‘Thus the Apostle says of Christ: ‘ He 
loved me and gave himself for me.” 

But the death of Christ, sufficient for all men, had 
special reference to his covenanted people. If some 
were given to Him that He might give them eternal 
life, He must have had a design in dying for them which 
He had not in dying for Judas. He had not the same 
zeal to die for his chosen and for those who, He knew, 
would reject Him and have their condemnation aggra- 
vated by His death. The atonement is sufficient for 
all, but its design may be learned from its result, which 


is, the salvation of God’s elect. 


XII. 


ELECTION. 


21 


~ : > al res re - 
s* an 7 has 
& - &s j ye : 
) ip ; 
a) as ¢ u 
a - 
aa " ¥ s Qa 
‘ 
. : | 
PY ‘ 
* 
ie ; 
? 
- é 
, 
' 
efi 
< 5 by ae 4 
e nag 77 
i 
mr j 4 1 aeek.* 
e 
AY fr) Lie fy 


‘ ‘ ’ a 8. 
* 
aT vie bs ‘ 
E.| 
verve ¥ a! 
Pi. *% i road 
. oy. - ' * A ditin 
27 Ayer sg . 
ed ‘ 
a Aes 148 
; v j 
70. ‘he ion as 
"eA on | ae Laat a 
*)) at 7 a iY : f at ¢ 4) 
; we? ae fe " i 
_. aes rm aire on ‘ 
BAS ‘, bans ies a 
i il ct ai | 4 
A, 
’ | ory, & an nthe Yigv a as ohia 
L? i 
; . o ‘ 
_ f ~~ 
5 
’ ‘ 
‘ irs 
“+ BY ei aie ea» 
/ —- — ay 
A 7 <u 7 var Ge: 
ed , . eee “ ee, 
. 2 . ow 46078 6 ee ee | te. = 


.. 
Vee ae me 





A 


dl ba bg 


ELECTION. 


HIS subject is confessedly a great deep. When we 

come to consider the secret purposes of the infinite 
God, modesty and humility are preéminently becom- 
ing in those who know so little of themselves. All 
which we can know of the subject is, of course, the 
little which God has been pleased to communicate. So 
that if we venture to speculate upon such premises, we 
are at once in danger of stepping beyond our province 
and becoming the counsellors of an Infinite and sover- 
eion will, 

Far better is that frame of mind which leads one to’ 
place not only his eternal destiny, but his will also in 
the hands of God to be directed as He shall please, than 
that feeling of jealousy lest God encroach upon our lib- 
erty which makes us try to prescribe the operations 
of the Most High. 

But the Bible is as careful to guard the liberty of man 
as the sovereignty of God; for, unless man be a free 


agent, God has no government over minds differing from 


244 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


his government of the planets. There is an essential 
difference between the two. To govern free, intelligent 
minds, — doing all his pleasure, and causing his counsel 
to stand, while the subject of his government is per- 
fectly accountable, is the crowning glory of the divine 
administration. Now, there is that in the soul of man 
with which God never interferes; He never makes one 
feel that he is crushed, or made to act against his will. 
In all his dealings with us as accountable creatures, 
there is an evident purpose on the part of God to make 
every one feel that he is wholly responsible for his future 
salvation or perdition. There can be nothing in any 
scriptural doctrine inconsistent with this, and any teach- 
ings of men which are contrary to it, are not true. 

No devout mind can entertain the least prejudice 
against the doctrine of Election when properly under- 
stood ; but misapprehensions and caricatures of the doc- 
trine fill many with alarm and horror. 

The exercise of God’s free and sovereign grace in 
the conversion and salvation of a part of mankind, is 
the only alternative to the endless sin and misery of the 
whole. Election, or electing and saving grace is, there- 
fore, the exercise of infinite wisdom and mercy. 

Every one who is saved will owe his recovery from 
sin and his eternity in heaven to Election, that is, to the 
purpose of God from all eternity to save him. 

Now, if Election is the necessary antecedent in the 
redemption of a multitude which no man can number, 


if every human being who escapes the second death 


ELECTION. 245 


will ascribe this salvation to Election, it should -not, 
surely, be viewed with suspicion and hatred. What 
evil hath it done? 

There will be no objection to any good which it may 
do; but the reply is, It is partial; it saves a part and 
leaves others, no worse than they, to perish. Not 
only so, it is alleged that ‘it prevents the salvation 
of a large part of mankind. None can, of course, be 
saved but the elect. They will be saved, do what 
they may; and others, do what they may, will perish.’ 

Never was there a greater misunderstanding of any 
truth. i 

It is not true that the elect will be saved, do what- 
ever they may, nor that the rest will perish, do what 
they may. 

This will be made to appear in the proper place. Let 
it merely be observed here, that Election, instead of 
being our enemy, with an austere, forbidding look, is our 
friend. It is the heart and hand of a Redeemer effect- 
ing the salvation of every one who will finally be saved, 
and leaving those who are not saved, in no worse a 
condition than though none were saved. 

The doctrine of Election involves the following 
truths, namely : 

1. All men if left to themselves will continue to 
sin and therefore will perish. 

2. God has resolved that he will rescue a part of 
mankind from perdition by persuading and enabling 


them to do their duty. 
21 * 


246 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


8. His influence on those who are saved is in perfect 
consistency with their freedom. 

4. No injustice is done to those who are left, salva 
tion is consistently offered to them, and their state is 
no worse than though all, like them, had perished. 

5. God purposed from all eternity to do that which 
He has actually done and is to do. 

If these things can be shown to be true, this doc- 
trine, so far from being obnoxious to prejudice, is a 
proper cause for thanksgiving and adoration. 

Without burdening our memories with the foregoing 
propositions, let us proceed to inquire whether they are 
scriptural. 

That all men left to themselves would persist in sin 
and perish, is proved by the inefficacy of means, in 
themselves, to convert the soul. 

For suppose that there were an inherent efficacy in 
truth, afflictions, mercies, public judgments, warnings, 
and personal entreaties, to withdraw men from sin 
and to renew the heart. It would follow that if we 
could only bring a sufficient amount of such influences 
to bear upon the sinner, he would necessarily be con- 
verted. It would be as it is with powder in blasting, — 
while a small quantity fails of any effect, a proper 
amount breaks the rock in pieces. Very few in Chris- 
tian lands, to say the least, would be left unconverted, 
certainly very few children of truly Christian parents, 
or hearers of faithful, evangelical preaching. Imagine 


a juryman listening to an argument from the bar for 


ELECTION. pial 


the length of time that he has heard the Gospel preachea 
without yielding himself to its power. ‘The thing is 
impossible. In every thing but religion appropriate 
means, suitably used, succeed. While God is, never- 
theless, pleased to exercise his grace through the use 
of means on our part, and while this is the ordinary 
rule, and we are therefore encouraged to use them, we 
are made to feel that where they are followed with 
success, their efficacy is not in themselves but in God 
alone. 

The Bible declares the utter inefficacy of means in 
themselves to change the heart. ‘But the natural 
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for 
they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know 
them, because they are spiritually discerned.” ‘ Be- 
cause the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it 
is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can 
be.” ‘* Peter answered and said unto him, Thou art 
the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus 
said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for 
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but 
my father which is in heaven.” ‘*No man can come 
unto me except the Father which hath sent me, draw 
him.” —‘** Which were born not of blood, nor of the 
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” 

The appointment of the Holy Ghost, the third person 
in the Godhead, to regenerate men, and the assignment 
to Him of this work, to be as peculiarly his as the atone- 


ment is the work of Christ, leads us to believe that 


248 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


man can no more regenerate himself than he can atone 
for his sins. 

God has purposed from eternity, that he will inter- 
pose and rescue some from perdition. 

‘¢ These words spake Jesus and lifted up his eyes to 
heaven and said — Father — glorify thy Son ;—as thou 
hast given him power over all flesh that he should give 
eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” ‘Ye 
have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and 
ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth 
fruit ;”’ —‘‘ for without me ye can do nothing.” ‘+ And 
when the Gentiles heard this they were glad and 
glorified the name of the Lord; and as many as were 
ordained to eternal life, believed.”? ‘*And we know 
that all things work together for good to them that 
love God; to them who are the called according to 
his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did 
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.” 
‘‘ Klect according to the foreknowledge of God the 
Father, through sanctification of the Spirit and_ belief 
of the truth.” 

It is said by some that this foreknowledge and choice 
on the part of God had reference merely to national 
arrangements, —to the bestowal of the Gospel on one 
people and not on another. But if God has commanded 
that the Gospel be ‘*made known to all nations for 


9? 


the obedience of faith,’ those who adopt the foregoing 
interpretation cannot, on their premises, show that one 


nation is ‘elected according to the foreknowledge of 


ELECTION. 249 


God the Father,” more than another. Besides, if it 
were so, this would only be a removal further back 
of the difficulty in election. For why is it less partial 
for God to elect one nation to receive the Gospel, than 
one individual? Such “election” of a nation will 
result in the salvation of a great multitude, while the 
nation not ‘elected’? will not be saved. In which case 
there is as much ground for suspicion of partiality as 
there could be in the case of individual ‘ election.’ 

There can be no objection to individual ‘ election,’ 
unless it interferes with the freedom of the individual, or 
does injustice to others. 

That it does not necessarily interfere with the freedom 
of the individual, may be shown by such analogies as 
these. God has decreed, we will say, that there shall 
be a crop of wheat in yonder field. No one would 
venture to say, ‘If God has decreed that the wheat 
shall grow there, it will certainly grow, let the husband- 
men do as they please.’ No, for if the grain is decreed, 
so is the planting, and the necessary tillage. Such, to 
be consistent, ought also to say, ‘If the passengers and 
crew in Paul’s ship were destined to be saved, they 
would have been saved, do whatever they pleased.’ But 
this was not so; for though Paul had told the ship- 
master and all on board, that he had had a divine revela- 
tion, and ‘there shall not a hair of your head perish,’ 
yet when he saw the men letting down the boat to escape, 
he said, ‘Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot’ be 


saved.’ 


250 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


If we are elected, it is also ‘elected’ or decreed that 
we shall be perfectly voluntary in our repentance and 
faith ; that we shall act as of our own accord. 

Here, some make a great mistake who strive to explain 
the consistency between these two things, attempting to 
show how it is that man works out his salvation while 
God works in him both to will and to do. No metaphy- 
sical explanations can make this plain. It is far the best 
way to prove both of these things, and then leave the 
explanation of their consistency as something beyond 
our reach. We may prove that they coéxist, that God 
has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and that man 
knows himself to be perfectly responsible for his actions. 
We never doubt this in the ordinary affairs of life ; for 
example, we make no question that a political cabinet 
is perfectly free as to any consciousness of supernatural 
control, in making war or peace, at the same time that 
the God of nations is ruling in those affairs, that his 
counsel will stand, and that He will do all his pleasure. 

It is no misfortune surely, in any respect, that God 
foreknows every thing, though the objections of some to 
his election of those who are to be saved, and his having 
any thing to do with the question who are to be saved, 
would lead us to feel that it would be more just if God 
would be ignorant of some things. We prefer to have 
One on the throne who cannot be disappointed nor sur- 
prised by any sudden turn of affairs, who cannot be 
countermined by the ingenuity of his enemies, and whose 


plans, instead of being shaped by what his creatures 


ELECTION. 251 


will do, shape their plans for them, in perfect consistency 
with their utmost freedom. 

But the great difficulty on this subject lies in the 
consistency of promises and threatenings, and the full 
and free offers of salvation to all men, with the secret 
purposes of God to overcome the opposition of only a 
certain number. It is asked how we can reconcile those 
secret purposes with the unconditional and unrestricted 
calls upon men everywhere to repent. Rather than 
believe in this alleged inconsistency on the part of God, 
many prefer to believe that there are no acts of election, 
that nothing is fixed beforehand with regard to the ques- 
tion whether one or another shall be made willing to 
repent; but that every individual receives the offer of 
pardon, and God, foreseeing how he will treat it, decides 
accordingly with regard to his future condition. All 
this proceeds, no doubt, from a sincere desire to preserve 
the liberty of the individual, and to secure for a preacher 
the greatest freedom in offering salvation to men, — 
which it is said no one can offer if he believes that it 
is already determined who shall be saved. 

To this it may be replied that since no one will be 
saved who does not repent and believe, and since no 
one in repenting and believing is conscious of any inter- 
ference with his perfect freedom of choice and act, and 
since neither preacher nor hearer knows who, if any, in 
the congregation are chosen to salvation, the preacher 
has nothing to do but make proclamation of the Gospel, 


- and treat his hearers as God treats them, as responsible 


252 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


and free. If they are converted it will be in the exercise 
of their constitutional powers of thinking and reasoning 
and feeling; those powers are stimulated through the 
action of one human mind upon another, presenting 
motives; this, as the channel of his influence, God has 
ordained, as truly as he has ordained pistils and stamens 
and pollen in flowers as the means of fulfilling his pur- 
poses in the fructification and propagation of plants. 

But it pains many to think tliat God offers salvation 
to those from whom he has purposed to withhold that 
grace which alone can make them accept it. 

Before replying to this, let us ask ourselves, Are we 
not all at liberty to accept or to reject the offers of God, 
as we choose? Wherein consists the inability of any 
hearer of the Gospel to go from the house of God to his 
chamber and there yield himself up to God? Is there 
any more power implied in doing this, or inability in 
not doing it, than if one of the two parties were an 
earthly parent, or master, instead of God? If it be 
true that no one will do this unless God constrains him, 
is it not owing wholly to the force of his disinclination ? 
And if so, who is responsible for it save the sinner 
himself? The ereater such inability, the greater the 
guilt. | 

We are always instructed and greatly satisfied with 
regard to this subject on listening to the prayer, after 
sermon, of one who has been repudiating the idea of 
election while calling upon his hearers at once to repent 


of their sins and accept Christ. ‘* Lord,” he says, “¢ we 


ELECTION. 258 


have done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is 
room. All has been said which we can say to convince 
and to persuade; but such is the blindness and hardness 
of our hearts that unless Thou interpose, all will be in 
vain. Now, Lord, stretch forth thy hand to save; open 
their eyes, change their hearts, make them willing in 
the day of thy power.” So prays the fervent, zealous 
‘opposer of Election, and no believer in the doctrine 
does any more. Prayer after sermon is out of place, 
when the object of*its petitions is a blessing upon the 
Word, unless we feel that Paul may plant and Apollos 
water, but God giveth the increase; but if this be so, 
there is nothing in the doctrine of Election inconsistent 
with prayer. The doctrine of Election is a greatly 
injured friend. It represents God as doing just that 
which every lover of souls beseeches God to do when 
all reasoning and persuasion appear to be utterly in vain. 

But we will meet the difficulty in the most explicit 
manner. As to any injustice toward those who are not 
made willing to repent, let us suppose the following 
case: A teacher is remonstrating with some pupils, in cir- 
cumstances where remonstrance seems the only suitable 
means of influencing them. [Everything is said which 
a reasonable being would think necessary to effect the 
purpose, or to make resistance inexcusable. All is in 
vain. ‘There is a unanimous rejection of the teacher’s 
endeavors. In a private way he calls one and another 
to him, one by one, and plies him with further consider- 


ations, appeals to things in his private history and cir- 
22 


254 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


cumstances, and he gains the submission of a number. 
This is followed by some great advantage, which makes 
these few the objects of envy. Now let us imagine the 
obstinate and persevering part of the company drawing 
near to upbraid the teacher, saying, ‘ Had you employed 
further influences with us, we too might have yielded. 
You were partial. On you be the blame of our loss.’ — 
They would be justly scorned for their impertinence. 
The teacher did all for them which as reasonable beings 
they could properly ask or expect. He sincerely desired 
the submission of all. It might have been as easy 
for him to have subdued them all, one by one, as to have 
secured the assent of the few. He exercised ‘ sover- 
elgnty,” “election,” in what he did. He did not hate 
any, he did not prefer their continued rebellion, though he 
chose not to interpose with them all, but to leave some 
under the influences of truth, reason, and their con- 
sciences. ‘True, he saw that no one would turn without 
some special act on his part; but this did not make 
them less criminal; it rather illustrated their guilt; nor 
did it abate their accountableness, nor his righteousness. 
If it be said that the foreknowledge of God makes the 
case wholly different between Him and sinners, we reply, 
Would we have God ignorant as to the results of his 
conduct, in order to save his consistency in his offers ? 
The difficulty is as great in supposing God not to know 
who will accept or reject his proposals, as in the present 
case, which but in part illustrates our subject. 

One of the most injurious and dishonorable views of 


ELECTION. pags, 


the divine government is that which seems to represent 
God as doing the best He can against sin, as against 
an unexpected adversary. It seems, according to some 
representations of the divine character and conduct, as 
though God would look upon the redeemed at last and 
congratulate himself that He had succeeded so well, 
better perhaps than He feared, though still there are 
multitudes who have disappointed Him and have not 
been won. This theory makes the Most High an object 
of pity. He has been invaded by an adversary, who 
has disputed his throne; He gains a partial success, 
but the killed, the wounded, and the missing are fearfully 
numerous, to his great disappointment and loss. This 
cannot be. We cannot fully revere one whom we pity. 
We prefer to place every man, angel and devil, with 
every holy and sinful act, and the eternal happiness or 
misery of every one of us, in the hands of an infinitely 
wise and powerful God, and pray that He would order 
every thing with a view to the highest interests of his 
universal kingdom, knowing as we do that “He is 
excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of 
justice.” We would make God supreme, and not 
the creature; and if there be conflicting theories with 
regard to the divine government, we incline to that 
which exalts God. We must make our thoughts and 
feelings on this subject chord ,.with the tone-note of 
such passages as these: ‘ My counsel shall stand, and 
I will do all my pleasure.’”’ ‘But our God is in the 


heavens; He hath done whatsoever He _ pleased.” 


256 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


‘¢ And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as 
nothing; and He doeth according. to his will in the 
army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the 
‘earth, and none can stay his hand, or say unto Him, 
What doest thou?” ‘* Whatsoever the Lord pleased, 
that did He in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and 
all deep places.” 

The idea that God elected some because He foresaw 
that they would repent, is not sustained when we con- 
sider that God could not foresee any thing which was 
not certain, and that nothing but God’s decree makes 
it certain. For there can be only two causes of cer- 
tainty ; the thing itself, or God’s purpose. A future 
thing cannot be the cause of its own existence, for that 
implies existence before the thing exists. If a thing’ 
can be the cause of its becoming future, then it might 
exist of itself, and there is no Great First Cause of 
all things. God cannot foreknow that a thing will 
exist, until it is certain that it will exist. Hence, speak- 
ing after the manner of men, the decree of God must be 
prior to his foreknowledge. He foreknew all things which 
would come to pass, by foreknowing his purposes. 

How did God foreknow that one soul would be 
saved as a consequence of the Saviour’s death? that 
the whole plan would not be a failure? If it were 
dependent on human choice, it might follow that 
Christ would not see of the travail of his soul in one 
convert. Can we suppose that the Almighty Ruler 


would thus leave his great plans contingent upon the 


ELECTION. pds 


choice and conduct of his creatures? We perceive 
that this was not so, if we consider the express decla- 
ration of the Apostle Peter, in which, with fearless 
disregard of cavil and utter forgetfulness of all seeming 
contradiction, he represents the Jews as fulfilling the 
purposes of God in the crucifixion of Christ: “ Him 
‘being delivered by the determinate counsel and _fore- 
knowledge of God, ye have taken, and with wicked hands 
have crucified and slain.’’ “ For of a truth,” said the 
assembled Church, on a memorable occasion, ‘ against 
thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both 
Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the 
people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do 
whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before 
to be done.” This scriptural way of treating divine 
decrees and free agency is surely safe — namely, to 
believe them both, and to leave out of view all question 
as to their consistency. ‘The wicked are charged with 
guilt in fulfilling God’s purposes in their voluntary 
transgression, while all merit is taken away from faith 
by saying of it, —‘“‘and that not of yourselves, it is 
the gift of God.” ‘The Lord hath made all things 
for himself, yea even the wicked for the day of evil.” 
Not one more, not one less, will be saved than God 
purposed. At the same time, in every case,’ ‘the 
work of a man’s hands shall he render unto him, and 
cause every man to find his own way.” 

It is important to bear in mind that the decrees of 


God are not the rule of our duty. It must of necessity 
22, * 


258 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


be that God shall have his plans and purposes. It is 
no misfortune to Himself nor to us, that He is all-wise 
and almighty. But while God is sovereign, and while 
nothing can arise to disappoint Him, it is equally true 
that every man has his choice, and will ‘eat the fruit 
of his own ways and be filled with his own devices.’ It 
is no more decreed whether each of us shall be saved 
or lost, than it is whether or not we shall spend the 
coming night in the places where we now are;—we 
shall no more fulfil a purpose of God by spending 
eternity in heaven or hell, than by being found here 
or elsewhere at midnight. We are as free to choose 
and to act in one case as in the other. 

We conclude that the two things are true— God’s 
electing purposes, and man’s perfect free agency. One 
is as true as the other. In a moral government, one | 
is as important as the other. The two things exist 
together, not only in religion, but in planting, and study- 
ing, and in commerce. But the consistency of the two 
things is called in question only in religion. God may 
justly condemn every objector out of his own mouth; 
for why do we cavil at divine agency in connection with 
the voluntary conduct of men in religion, when we 
believe in it and fully admit it in every thing else per- 
taining to human conduct ? 

It is asked, ‘Why does not God save all men by 
choosing them? He does this for some, He could easily 
do it for all. It would be so beneficent, and it is so 


easy, aS we see in the case of those who are chosen 


ELECTION. 259 


and called, that the wonder is why all are not made 
willing ? ’ 

Two answers are given to this question, and they 
mark respectively two opposite systems. 

One theologian says, ‘God cannot convert all men, 
any more than he can make two and two five, or create 
mountains without a valley between them. We do not, 
in saying this, limit his power; He has himself chosen 
to be governed by laws, and there are laws which abso- 
lutely prevent Him from converting all men. Some 
sin and resist in such ways and to such degrees that 
God cannot consistently overcome their opposition. He 
judged best from all eternity to leave some to them- 
selves who should oppose his efforts for their good with 
certain kinds or degrees of resistance.’ 

To this many objections may be made. 

One is, Jt makes conversion, or the bestowment of 
special grace, somewhat merited on the part of those 
who are converted. It represents God as trying all 
men up to a certain point with the question whether 
they would submit to Him, and then deciding their 
future condition by the degrees of their opposition or 
the readiness of their submission. ‘ But,’’ says the 
apostle to the Thessalonians, ‘‘we are bound to give 
thanks always to God for you, brethren, beloved of the 
Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you 
to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and. belief 
of the truth.”’ Again, another says, “‘ Elect, according 
to the foreknowledge of God the father, through sancti 


260 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


fication of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of 
the blood of Jesus.”’ 

Then, again, it makes the choice of God depend 
wholly on one thing, leaving out of view the wide range 
of considerations on the part of God which would make 
the salvation of one soul more illustrative than another 
of important principles, and more influential in his gov- 
ernment of others. | 

But the following answer to the question, Why God 
does not secure the salvation of all men by overcoming 
their opposition to Him, is to be preferred, namely, 
God, for infinitely wise reasons, does not choose to do 
so. He prefers, in certain cases, not to interfere with 
the sinner’s chosen course of rebellion. Enough is done 
to convince and persuade him, in the ordinary means 
of religious instruction, if he will yield his criminal 
aversion to God. But God does not, in certain cases, 
see fit to interpose. 

If this be not so, why did not God interpose and 
prevail over Pharaoh, and Saul, and Rehoboam? why 
did he not prevent the revolt of the Ten Tribes? This 
leads to questions about the existence of moral evil, 
where we soon lose ourselves, and our wisdom is turned 
to folly. But it is no part of wisdom to assign a reason 
which dishonors God, for the sake of accounting for 
any thing which may after all be inscrutable. ‘“ Even 
so Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight,’’ said the 
Saviour in view of God’s sovereign choice. We do 


not assign reasons for this choice; we only say that 


ELECTION. 261 


there are reasons for it in God’s unrevealed purposes 
and plan, and that the sinner does not himself limit 
or control the power and grace of God by his obedience 
or disobedience, in any such way as to interfere with 
the perfect sovereignty of God. 

We may safely ask any unconverted man if he has 
not, thus far, had his own secret choice; whether he 
has felt himself to be debarred from opportunities to be 
at peace with God, and whether, in short, he has not 
obtained as much in religion as he has ever desired or 
endeavored to possess. 

It is not so with regenerate men. Their language is, 
““My soul followeth hard after thee.” The panting 
heart, the thirsty land, are emblems of believing souls. 
We shall obtain our wishes in this respect; every man 


> but no doubt the unrea- 


will “find his own way;’ 
sonable complaint at last of many will be, that God 
suffered them to have their own choice. But as rational 
creatures they were perfectly capable of choosing for 
themselves, and ‘“reprobation” will consist ‘simply in 
abandoning some to their chosen way, our decisions, 
all unconsciously to ourselves, coming out at last in 
perfect accordance with the eternal purposes of God. 
To change the strain of such remarks, — We can 
readily perceive what perfect joy it must be to feel that, 
if we are believers, God has, from the beginning, 
chosen us to salvation, through sanctification of the 
Spirit and belief of the truth. A foundation is thus 


laid for our safety which is sure. ‘I have loved thee 


262 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


with an everlasting love; therefore with loving kindness 
have I drawn thee.” “Being confident of this very 
thing that he which hath begun a good work in you 
will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.’ ‘ Elec- 
tion’’ is the everlasting guarantee of safety to all who 
accept Christ, because their acceptance was not of 
themselves, ‘it is the gift of God.’ It hinders no one 
from being saved. To every one who declines to use 
the appointed means of salvation, with reliance on divine 
aid promised to all who seek it, the language of the 
doctrine is, ‘Friend, I do thee no wrong.’ On the 
other hand, it is ‘strong consolation”? to those who 
have “fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set 


before them.’’ 


XIII. 


REGENERATION. 





XIII. 
REGENERATION. 


I is an interesting inquiry, whether the confession 
of faith which Nicodemus made to Christ was suffi- 
cient to constitute him a Christian. It implies all which 
is held by many to be essential to the Christian charac- 
ter and to salvation. We take it for granted that -it 
was accompanied by a moral, upright life. Nothing 
more is essential, in the view of many, in order to be 
a Christian but to receive Christ, with the heart, as a 
divinely commissioned teacher. Receiving Him thus, 
believing his words, and, according to our ability, as it 
is said, practising his precepts, if a man is not, in the 
Saviour’s view, a Christian, what can be wanting to 
complete his acceptance with God ? 

We naturally conceive of Nicodemus as a venerable, 
intelligent, upright man, rather over-cautious, perhaps, 
at least very prudent, a candid, liberal, and, for every 
reason, an estimable man. 

If a Persian of high repute came to many of our 


friends and fellow-citizens, saying, I am at last persuaded 
23 


266 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


that Jesus Christ is a divinely commissioned teacher, 
and I shall endeavor to be governed by his instructions 
in my intercourse with men, are there not many who 
would welcome him to full communion as a Christian ? 

Should he, however, come to others and make this 
profession, they would say to him, We are glad to hear 
this ;—-and now tell us whether you perceive any radi- 
cal change in your feelings toward God, comparing your 
present state with your views and feelings before you 
came to this belief in Christ as a teacher come from 
God. How do you view yourself’ in comparison with 
the law of God, and what have you done to obtain 
pardon? Are we saved by our own righteousness? Or, 
do you depend on the righteousness of Christ ? 

Some would say, This is carrying the matter too far. 
If aman be a moral, upright man, and a conscientious 
believer in the religion of Jesus, why should we pry 
into his secret experience, or perplex him with questions 
as to his interior life?— Then, perhaps, those familiar 
words would be quoted: ‘He can’t be wrong whose 
life is in the right.” 

But what constitutes a man’s “life?” ‘Out of the 
heart are the issues of life;” the secret feelings and pur- 
poses form a guide to our whole conduct. Our secret 
feelings toward God, are, by the lawgiver, placed first 
in enumerating the duties of man: ‘ Thou shalt love 
the Lord thy God, —and thy neighbor as thyself.’ One 
who should be destitute of filial love would not be justi- 


fied by proving that as a brother he was exemplary. 


— 


REGENERATION. 267 


Therefore we should not be satisfied with Nicodemus 
if he came and made this profession of faith in the Mes- 
siah. We would, however, most affectionately take him 
by the hand and lead him on to the knowledge of higher 
and more essential truth. 

Such was the way in which the Saviour treated him. 

There was every thing in his approach to Christ fitted 
to conciliate respect and love. It was a great thing for 
a man in his circumstances to come before Christ with 
such a profession. He was a Ruler of the Jews. We 
gather from the sacred record that he had weight of 
character. He performed one of the most critical and 
difficult things when, on one occasion, he stilled a popular 
excitement by asking a question of the Pharisees fraught 
with common sense: “Doth our law condemn a man 
before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” They 
gave him, it is true, a surly answer; but we read that 
‘every man went to his own house.’ 

All these things being considered, the reception of 
Nicodemus by Christ was remarkable. 

He reinforced his explicit confession of Christ with 
an argument, —‘‘for no man can do the miracles which 
thou doest except God be with him.” 

The use of the word ‘‘ we,” when he said, ** we know 
that thou art a teacher come from God,” seemed to imply 
a turning tide in favor of Christ among his circle. 

Now it must be confessed that the reply of Christ 
is surprising, —it is far different from that which many 


. would have expected. 


268 EVBNINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


The Saviour ‘does not seem to recognize his confession. 
He does not take up his line of remark; He does not 
confirm his young faith by further arguments or con- 
vineing signs. ‘This, however, He did in the case of 
Nathanael, for He proceeds to reward and to strengthen 
that man’s faith in Him by giving him a proof of his 
omniscience: ‘ Before that Philip called thee, when thou 
wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee,’ and Nathanael’s 
answer shows that this was something more than the 
knowledge of a passer-by; it made him feel that things 
in his experience were known by the Saviour which 
could have been known only to himself and to God. 

But the reply of Christ to Nicodemus, on the contrary, 
was abrupt, startling; it was an intimation to him that 
he needed not only something more, but something of 
a different kind. ‘‘ Jesus answered and said unto him, 
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 

But it may be said, True, this was abrupt and startling, 
yet was it not merely a chosen method of arresting the 
_attention and impressing the mind of the inquirer? Was 
it not as though Christ had said, *‘ You are entirely right ; 
and unless a man thinks and believes as you do, he 
cannot be a believer in Christ’? This desperate attempt 
at interpretation has had its defenders. 

That such was not the meaning of the Saviour’s 
words, we infer from their evident effect upon Nico- 
demus, and from the further reply of Christ. His mind 


was led away by the Saviour’s words to another train - 


REGENERATION. 269 


of thought, and Christ did not bring him back to his 
first position. Nicodemus answers, ‘ How can a man 
be born when he is old?” Christ replies, ‘ Art thou 
a master in Israel and knowest not these things?” 

One may well ask here, with the two who walked 
to Emmaus, “ What things?” Let us frame several 
answers, and see if they are warranted by the conver- 
sation; so we may learn what Christ meant by being 
“born again.” | 

‘Knowest thou not’ that unless a man ceases to be 
a Jew he cannot become a Christian ?— That surely 
is not the meaning of Christ. Being ‘born again’ 
cannot mean merely a change from Judaism to Chris- 
tianity, for Nicodemus would have had no difficulty in 
understanding how a man could in that way be born 
when he is old. And would those who suggest this 
interpretation admit that Christ meant to teach, 
No one can go to heaven unless he ceases to be a 
Jew? 

Nor could He have meant that unless a vicious man 
became thoroughly moral he could not be saved. This 
is too obvious to be solemnly asserted, and_ besides, 
Nicodemus would have expressed no surprise at such 
a truth. 

Still, this is the explanation of those who see nothing 
supernatural in the meaning of Christ. They hold 
Him as saying, An entire change of views, feelings, 
habits, and practices is necessary for an irreligious man 


to become a Christian. There is no allusion, they think, 
23 * 


270 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


to a supernatural change. And such a change as they 
advocate, of course, is not supernatural. 

But we think that the further conversation of Christ 
contains a perfect demonstration that in speaking of being 
“born again,” He referred to a supernatural change. 
And this is the evidence: He declares this change, what- 
ever it is, to be a mystery, and He compares it to the 
inscrutable mysteriousness of the wind. ‘ The wind 
bloweth where it listeth; and thou hearest the sound 
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor 
whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the 
Spirit.” 

Now we have only to apply this declaration of mys- 
teriousness to the things said by many to be intended 


by the expression ‘“‘ born again,” 


to see that they do 
not answer to this description. For example: We 
cannot say, Every one who changes his faith, or, Every 
one who ceases to be immoral and becomes virtuous, 
is like the mysterious wind. A man, ceasing to be a 
Turk and becoming a Christian, or a Jew giving in 
his adhesion to Christ, cannot be likened, in the processes 
of his mind under that change, to one of the most 
inscrutable things in nature. There is indeed no mystery 
in such changes, any further than that every thing relating 
to mind is mysterious. There is as much that is mys- 
terious in the act of walking as in a change of views 
and feelings, or of habits and behavior. All agree in 
this, that the Great Teacher would not have needlessly 


poured confusion and mystery on the path of an inquirer ; 


REGENERATION. 271 


yet we see that He did at once direct his attention to 
something which Nicodemus did not understand. 

We will now assume that Christ, in these words, 
intended to teach a change in the nature of man, such 
as lies beyond the experience of the human mind in 
the exercise of its own powers and faculties even under 
the ordinary assistance of divine providence. 

We will, therefore, paraphrase the words of Christ 
in this manner: When Nicodemus said, ‘‘ Rabbi, we 
know that thou art a teacher come from God” — Christ 
says, All this is right and good; but something more 
is necessary than to believe in my divine mission, or 
to receive my precepts. You must be born again. Not 
you, merely, but, ‘except a man be born again, he 
cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus replies, 
This, in the nature of things, is impossible. The 
Saviour repeats it, but varies and intensifies his expres- 
sions: Except a man experience such a spiritual reno- 
vation of his nature as would be indicated by saying 
that he is ‘born of water,’ that is, that a cleansing 
process should enter into his very nature, unless a man 
be thus renewed by the Holy Spirit that he shall be 
as really a partaker of a renewed nature as he was 
partaker of his fleshly nature through his parents, he 
can neither be a member of my kingdom on earth, nor 
in heaven. 

Christ proceeds to show the necessity of this change. 
He seems to add, It lies in this, that there is a total 


difference between man by nature and man by grace. 


oT2 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that 


which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that 





I say unto you, Ye must be born again ;’? —a word 
too solemn and impressive to mean any thing which 
lies within the consciousness of every human _ being, 
and pointing to something supernatural. 

We will suppose Nicodemus to inquire of Christ 
what He means by ‘flesh.”” We can be at no loss 
for the reply. The word is often synonymous with 
sinfulness, and denotes a corrupt, natural disposition. 
“So then they that are in the flesh cannot please 
God.” ‘When we were in the flesh,” says Paul, 
“the motions of sins—did work in our members to 
bring forth fruit unto death.” The meaning of Christ, 
then, must be this: Every one who is born into this 
world has a corrupt nature. Its characteristic is sinful- 
ness. And every one who experiences the transforma- 
tion now spoken of is as truly born of the Spirit of 
God as by nature he is born of his parents, and his 
nature is characterized by holiness as its governing 
principle. It is important, however, to bear in mind, 
that as there are some things in the corrupt nature 
which are lovely and pleasant, so in the spiritual nature 
there are deficiencies, and indications of a remaining 
corruption. ‘The nature in the one case, however, is 
characterized by sin with not the smallest degree of 
holiness, and the other by the love and practice of 
holiness and by desires after God, mingled with imper- 


fections and sins. — But, to resume the argument. Do 


REGENERATION. 213 


‘not marvel at this, the Saviour adds, that I assert the 
necessity for such a radical .transformation of man’s 
nature; for if you reflect you must perceive that, to be 
qualified for a spiritual, holy heaven, man must have 
an utter change of nature. 

How can these things be? exclaims the Ruler. He 
had never thought of religion as consisting in any 
thing but uprightness, morality, and the right perform- 
ance of religious observances. 

‘“¢ Art thou a master in Israel,”’ says Christ, “and know- 
est not these things?’? You do not seem to receive 
my witness; yet I speak that which I know, and testify 
that which I have seen. However mysterious, this 
which I have now inculdated is really one of the 
simple things of religion; it is among the “earthly,” 
that is, the rudimental, elementary, truths. If you 
stumble here, what will you do as you proceed? for 
if I have told you elementary things, and ye believe 
not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things, 
— things which lie beyond human apprehension. It is 
in my power to tell you of these things, also, as no 
one else can do; “for no man hath ascended up to 
heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the 
Son of man which is in heaven.’ Let me indicate to 
you one of these heavenly things. I came not merely 


> I come as a sacrifice 


as ‘*¢a teacher sent from God ;’ 
for sin. Well do you know how faith m a brazen 
serpent healed the Israelites in the desert. ‘+ As Moses 


lifted up the serpent. in the wilderness, even so must 


” 


274 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth 
in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 
For God so loved the world that he gave his only 
begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish, but have everlasting life. He that believeth 
on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is 
- condemned already, because he hath not believed in 


the name of the only begotten Son of God.”’ 


The effect of this conversation on Nicodemus is seen 
not only in his opposition to an unjust procedure, in 
the presence of the Pharisees, as before mentioned, but 
at the cross of Christ and at the Saviour’s burial, he 
witnessed a good confession when the world was against 
him and his Lord. ‘And there came also Nicodemus 
which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought 
also a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred 
pound weight.”” True, he did not, like Joseph, come 
‘boldly’ to Pilate; and some have expressed the fear that 
he is included among those of whom it is said, ‘* Never- 
theless among the chief rulers, also, many believed on 
him; but because of the Pharisees, they did not confess 
him lest they should be put out of the synagogue. 
For they loved the praise of men more than the praise 
of God.” If ‘born again,” perhaps he was an illus- 
tration of the consistency between being regenerated 
and low degrees of sanctification. Let us hope otherwise. 

The doctrine of Christ in this conversation, therefore, 
is, that every man must experience a supernatural change 


in order to enter heaven. 


REGENERATION. yogis 


If this be so, we must expect to see men experiencing 
that change; there is a transformation of nature which 
takes place answering to the description given of it by 
the Saviour. Is there any such phenomenon? 

There is a remarkable phenomenon in human experi- 
ence occurring everywhere under the preaching of the 
Gospel. It is called regeneration, change of heart, the 
new birth. It takes place everywhere, under the 
preaching of the Gospel, without respect to the previous 
conditions of men, whether learned or ignorant, civilized 
or savage. Missionaries preach Christ crucified to a 
rude and barbarous people, and soon we read the experi- 
ences of the native converts expressed in terms answering 
to the experience of the most cultivated in any lands. 
Sometimes many of these transformations take place at 
once; often, without the knowledge of what is passing 
in the minds of each other, members of the same family 
or congregation will manifest this change. The most 
learned and discriminating of men have substantially 
the same experience with the converted barbarian. Bax- 
ter, and Doddridge, and Chalmers, writing an account 
of their experience respectively, would agree, in all that 
is essential, with the artless narratives given by candi- 
dates for admission to the churches formed in heathen 
countries. This change is so remarkable where the 
Gospel is preached, that it cannot be accounted for from 
local peculiarities. Nor can it be ascribed to personal 
influence, to priestcraft, to sectarian zeal. Let any 


man be overtaken, for example, by affliction, sending 


276 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


him to his Bible for instruction and consolation, and 
he, without the. aid of a teacher, will be likely to 
experience this change in as marked a way as any 
convert under the ministry or personal influence of a 
fellow man. 

There is no other phenomenon in human experience 
which answers to the words of Christ when He declares 
that a certain change is necessary in order that any man 
may see God. 

The characteristics of this change are, The individual 
is convinced of his utter ruin and condemnation as a 
sinner; he accepts the atoning sacrifice of Christ as 
the ground of his justification; this, which is wrought 
in him by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the use 
of his own faculties, is accompanied by a permanent 
change in his views and feelings toward God, indicated 
by that which the Saviour himself designated as the 
distinguishing mark of conversion in Saul of Tarsus, 
—‘ Behold he prayeth.”” Prayer becomes a natural 
and spontaneous expression of his feelings toward God, 
a relationship of father and child being now established 
between them. A new principle has taken possession 
of his nature, disallowing sin, causing pain when it is 
committed, or afterward, in addition to the mere twinges 
or reproaches of conscience. The old nature is not 
annihilated ; no new powers and faculties are implanted, 
but the taste, the bias, of the soul, are on the side of 
holiness, and they gain the ascendency by greater or 


less degrees. Sometimes it is the case that the appetite 


REGENERATION. OTT 


for vicious indulgence is at once and wholly destroyed, 
when regeneration takes place. A remarkable and well 
attested illustration of this may be found in Doddridge’s 
Life of Col. Gardner. There are many well known 
cases of the same kind in modern times, and among 
inebriates. It is an error to speak of ‘eradicating a 


? 


propensity ;’ this cannot take place in this world except 
by unnatural violence done to the human system. The 
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus sets us free 
from the body of sin and death, in proportion as that 
law gets ascendency. ‘Our lusts its wondrous power 
controls.” But in most cases the warfare “continues 
through life; yet instead of being a proof of unregen- 
eracy, as some, dismayed by temptation, conclude, it is 
a proof that a work of grace has begun, and is making 
progress in the soul. 

This change is denoted by Christ as being ‘“ born of 
water and of the Spirit.” Zo be born of any thing, 
is to partake of, and to represent, the nature of that 
thing. ‘Born of light,’ is a phrase to denote truth, 
transparency of character ; ‘born of contention,’ indi- 
cates disquiet and disagreement; ‘born of water’ ex- 
presses the idea of being radically cleansed, and to be 
‘born of the Spirit,’ is to receive a radical change by 
the influence of the Holy Spirit. To ‘be born of 
water and of the Spirit,’ therefore, is to have a radical 
change, the character, and the source, of it being indi- 
cated by the terms water, and the Spirit. 


This change is permanent;— as permanent as the 
res | | 


278 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


natural creation of the soul itself; this moral reno- 
vation can no more become annihilated than the soul 
itself. The proofs of this will be presented under an- 
other subject. 

But it may be observed here, that few things are of 
greater practical importance. The question whether a 
real change of heart is necessarily and always permanent, 
has a very great influence on Christian character and 
happiness. 

While no new powers and faculties are implanted in 
the soul, this change makes a man capable of things of 
which he was morally incapable before. Distaste of sin, 
love of holiness, both from a perception of their respective 
natures, and not merely with a view to their consequences, 
delight in God, the love of holy pleasures and pursuits, 
new governing motives and ends in life, are the fruits of 
this change. 

But there is constant resistance in the soul to this 
new principle. Life now is a conflict. Two streams 
tending opposite ways now frequently meet; before, the 
current of the soul ran one way. Hence, the stronger 
the resistance between the new nature and the old, the 
more manifest is the proof that regeneration is asserting 
itself, though the subject of the conflict is ready to con- 
clude that he can never have been renewed. With the 
mind he serves the law of God; with the flesh, the law 
of sin; but the result, on the whole, is victory, though 
every hour, if judged according to his works, he would 
utterly fail of justification, and he needs continually the 


righteousness which God has provided in Jesus Christ. 


REGENERATION. ren 


Regeneration is the work of God. Man is active in 
the change, he is not conscious of any supernatural 
power, he cannot distinguish the operations of the Spirit 
from his own thoughts and feelings. But every one 
who is regenerated, is ‘born not of blood, nor of the 
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.’ 
It is not mere help given to deficient, but almost com- 
petent, strength, in the sinner while trying to do his 
duty ; from first to last it is the sovereign work of God ; 
He takes the first step ; every thing in the soul is natu- 
rally averse to God, and it is overcome and changed by 
Sivine power, all, however, in perfect but mysterious 
consistency with the freedom and entire responsibility 
of the soul itself. True, there is in man a love of hap- 
piness, and this is made use of, appeals are made to it, 
but of itself it never leads man to God, notwithstanding 
the sure conviction that sin will be followed by endless 
misery. There is no passion in the human soul which 
man will not, at some time, indulge at the risk of life ; 
in like manner, eternal life is placed at jeopardy in the 
pursuit of sin. There is no claim which a fellow man 
would need to urge so long and so strenuously, by a 
ten thousandth part, as ministers urge the claims of God 
upon the human soul, where they have labored in vain. 
No man ever repents of his sins and turns to God but 
by divine power. He who is capable of loving and of 
discriminating between good and evil, and has a perfect 
appreciation of duty and justice, and of claims upon his 


gratitude, is nevertheless totally averse to the just claims 


280 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


of God upon him; and this is not owing, therefore, to 
any inability which makes him excusable, but to a want 
of inclination; so that instead of his inability being an 
excuse, the guilt is in proportion to the inability ; hence, 
he who is most unable is under the greater condemna- 
tion, if, indeed, there could be degrees in an inability 
which is everywhere total, or in the lost condition of 
one who is ‘ condemned already.’ 

While all this is true, Regeneration, as the gift of 
God, is obtainable by every one. 

Here we will confine ourselves to the simple repre- 
sentations of the Bible, and to the analogy of human, 
experience in common things. 

We everywhere find in the Bible appeals made to 
men, in the form of commands, invitations, entreaties, 
expostulations; their hopes and fears are addressed ; 
their love of happiness, their dread of pain, their sense 
of duty, their shame, are appealed to with a view to 
convince them of sin and persuade them to repent. 

The consistency of this with the alleged utter mability 
of man to act without divine power first moving him 
to do his duty, has always been the subject of discussion, 
and it probably always will be while human nature 
remains the same. One obvious consideration is of 
service in this connection. The power of God may be 
equally great and sovereign in influencing the human 
mind and in starting one of the orbs of heaven in its 
career; but this power is evidently far more different 


in the two cases than the power which makes a planet 


REGENERATION. 281 


move is from that which makes the. corn to grow or 
a bird to fly. In both these cases, established laws 
exist, regulating growth or action, and God, who appointed 
those laws, observes them. But in causing a soul to act 
agreeably to his wall, He brings a nature into existence, 
with its established laws; He falls in with them; and 
instead of compelling obedience, involuntarily, He treats 
men as free agents, influences them through consider- 
ations, and makes them willing. Because He does 
this, some say He cannot and does not exercise any 
sovereion control over the mind. But they who say 
this do not consider that to influence and govern a will 
is not in the nature of things the same as to govern a 
cloud or storm. If the will of a free agent is governed, 
it will be governed in the use of motives. It is trne 
that in using these motives in regeneration a power is 
exerted to make them effectual, yet this power is truly 
consentaneous with the act of willing. Does any one 
maintain that God cannot make us willing without 
interfering with our perfect freedom? If he asserts 
this, he assumes to know that to which Christ referred 
when, using the figure of the wind, He said, —*“ thou 
canst not tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth; 
so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” 

With divine simplicity, fearless of the metaphysicians, 
Paul says, “ Work out your own salvation with fear 
and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you both 
to will and to do of his good pleasure.” God works 


in us “to will;’’ He makes us “ will;’’ He makes us 
24 * 


982 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


willing; He ‘vorks in us to will, and we, at the same 
time, work out our salvation. There are some who 
profess that they can explain this; it is generally most 
clear to some who are fresh from their academical 
studies; as they advance in knowledge, however, some 
of them happily conclude that it is best to show the 
sovereignty of God in conversion, and the conscious 
freedom of man, and to leave the manner of their 
codperation where the Saviour cautioned Nicodemus to 
leave the infinite mystery. Until we know the nature 
of the Spirit’s operation in the soul, we cannot assert 
that it is inconsistent with the perfect responsibility of 
man. 

The simple duty of man is to repent and believe on 
Christ. Doing this (by the operation of the Holy 
Spirit, for it is the gift of God), a mysterious divine 
work is done in the soul by the Holy Spirit, which 
constitutes Regeneration. Repentance is not regenera- 
tion; faith is not regeneration; they “‘ accompany and 
flow from’’ regeneration. There is a work of the 
Spirit in the nature of the soul, and not merely among 
its volitions; something is done which causes those 
volitions to be otherwise than they are by nature. 
What it is, no one can tell us; good and able men try 
their skill in efforts to explain it; ‘the balance of the 
sensitivities is changed,’ says one; ‘the bias of the 
will is deflected,” says another; “the substratum of the 
soul is renovated and fertilized,’ says a third; and a 


fourth thinks that nothing is done which is constitutional, 


REGENERATION. 288 


but God is the author of every holy volition, by a direct 
act. But, ‘“‘as thou knowest not how the bones do 
grow ’’ —or what life is, we may well be silent, and 
lay our hands upon our mouths. 

We must establish in the mind of every man the 
belief of his perfect accountableness for his character 
and conduct. This we can do without being able to 
explain to him the mysterious connection between his 
freedom and divine influence. We can satisfy a reflect- 
ing mind by showing that we all believe ourselves to 
act freely in the most vital affairs, while we know that 
God rules in them; that we are never hindered by the 
thought of his decrees from planting, that we never 
impute our failures to Him when we have been either 
neglectful or unwise. If one says, I cannot repent 
nor believe in Christ without divine aid, therefore I 
must wait till the power of God shall come upon me; 
we can satisfy him that he remains inactive for such a 
reason only in religion, while his objection would be 
equally true in other things which never awaken the 
least suspicion of his not being wholly free. 

As the Holy Spirit influencing the soul in regenera- 
tion acts wholly in accordance with the nature and 
laws of the mind and will, so it is true that there are 
means to be used by ourselves in regeneration, prepara- 
tions for it, and hinderances, in all of which human 
liberty is never invaded, and the result makes every 
one see and feel that he receives according to his work. 


To see the conscious liberty of men in all that relates 


984 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


to this change, we have only to consider, What is there 
to hinder any one from retiring to read the Word of 
God, with meditation? What is there in the way of 
his asking God to teach him and lead him while he 
inquires as to his duty? If he is tempted to stroll, or 
to be slothful, or to work, on the Sabbath, what pre- 
vents him but his own inclination from resisting such 
temptations and from taking his place in the house of 
God? And on going home, is there any miraculous 
agency, of which he must be conscious, necessary to 
make hin kneel in prayer and acknowledge before God 
the truth and obligation of such things as have been 
impressed upon his conscience and heart ? 

He who should do these things, seeking that repentance 
and faith which the Bible requires, would be more sure 
of experiencing the regenerating grace of God than he 
can be of success in any mercantile or agricultural 
pursuit by the use of the most promising means. Risk 
and misfortune wait on every thing else; but ‘him that 
cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.” ‘* Ask 
and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock 
and it shall be opened unto you.” Let any one reflect 
whether there is any thing in these common acts above 
alluded to in striving to exercise repentance and faith, 
which calls for any greater measure of conscious aid 
from on high than his daily enterprises? Surely not; 
yet at the same time every such act is as truly the work 
of the Holy Spirit as though we saw or felt his agency, 


or were conscious of being utterly passive in these 


REGENERATION. 285 


experiences and actions. We think on our ways; we 
turn to God; we feel unhappy and in need of a more 
than human love; we feel ourselves to be sinful and 
lost, and we draw near to Him who alone can help us. 
We should repel one who should tell us that we are 
mere machines in feeling and acting in this manner ; 
but still all his emotions have been the gracious operation 
of the Holy Spirit. If they are ‘sovereign,’ they are also 
connected in the divine plan with the use of means | 
on our part; but if one says, I have no heart to use 
such means, and am therefore excusable if I fail to be 
saved, we need only watch him when, the next hour, 
perhaps, he rouses himself to perform some unpleasant 
duty with vigor and success, to tell him that one such 
act in relation to his soul and to his God would be 
for his everlasting peace. Men every day do that in 
their worldly affairs which will appear at last to their 
condemnation if they lose their souls. 

But here we must guard ourselves against two mis- 
takes, — one, that if we use the means of regeneration 
and are not converted we are not to blame; and the 
other (which leads to this), that preparation to comply 
with the Gospel may be substituted for repentance and 
faith. We must neither enjoin nor try to do any thing 
in doing which we should perish if sudden death should 
overtake us. ‘+ Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise 
perish.’ ‘ He that believeth not is condemned already.” 

-Some, who have confident hope that they love God, 


tell us that they have never experienced any thing cor- 


286 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


responding to such a change as~has now been described. 
To such our reply must be, with all humility, but with 
gratitude to God, We have experienced it, unless we 
are wholly deceived. .We everywhere meet with those 
who have experienced it, when we go from place to 
place. It is not mere agreement of belief; it is the 
experience of a change such as we can designate best 
by the words, *‘ born again.””—It is an obvious law 
of testimony that the witness of those who did not see 
a certain thing cannot countervail the testimony of 
those who, being equally credible with them, did see 
it, and who take their oath upon it. Many ground 
all their hope of heaven on this work of the Spirit in 
their hearts as the result of the Saviour’s death and 
intercession. They are not enthusiasts. They enjoy 
the confidence of their fellow-men in every thing which 
requires implicit trust. 

Wonderful are the terms by which the New Testa- 
ment sets forth the greatness of this work of regenera- 
tion in the soul of man. It is “being quickened,” 
from being ‘‘ dead in trespasses and sins;” ‘ created 


> and the power which accom- 


anew in Christ Jesus;’ 
plishes it is said to be that which the Father “ wrought 
in Christ when he raised him from the dead and _ set 
him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.” 
To a-weak, sinful, erring creature, who, at his best 
estate, is altogether vanity, the doctrine of Regeneration 
is full of consolation and joy. God does a work in 


his soul when, by the mercy of God, the sinner is led 


REGENERATION. 287 


to repentance, which will survive amidst all the fluc- 
tuations of his experience, be a source of recovery and 
strength to him, a guarantee ‘of final victory and salva- 
tion. Others who appeared well, but in whom the 
Holy Spirit never wrought the great change, will fall 
away. But he will be like a tree by the rivers of 
water. He may be shaken and tossed, and will often 
judge himself to be forgotten of God, and given up to 
Satan; but, we are “confident,” says Paul, “of this 
very thing, that he which hath begun a good work 
in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” 
‘¢ Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incor- 
ruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth 


forever.”’ 





aie 


ve. 
















a ib eas Tebters a vite AIP dit ical 
ae sets dai ee Pie ahs ip ae | 
= met fae I oaseel leah essay ri SY ie 
a eat peat" qe we die Since ul z uP 
Soe ng as oa ge 
: te Aatie oP Sih a Sait ee aR ce: 
|. RY bia? BGRGP bai” Bbiinde ot eam 6 
nm ¢ rh maria’ Baa “Red? To: ‘Hesse, ad of ¥ 
ait toa? fone bene, eobines © im Pe 
See bets tied” Hae GN ait: onl 
. ONS Vea Wel ey Vite SE sent 
“jira 20 nit! enfeithe sldiigattge G: Wit ire 


ete bite’ ieenit rite aprcghed ‘hin WT se 


: ff. nl he ra sip, é 








74 , i] * 
4 «¥ ' 
‘ ve 
| of 
eh? yee 
. ‘ 
. 4 
’ 4 . 
- 
> 
a ; goedQoe 
¥ Ty ie = 
* val « 
: : PeNel a : 
‘- ; : 
7 on; 
he - 
. se 
A 
: ‘ Sa 
= a a = 


XIV. 
THE CERTAIN 


PERSEVERANCE 


OF THE 


REGENERATE. 


25 







see " i 
f 
a ~ 
< ce j as P » 
u | - 
’ PO 
| oo i) 
i) 7 
+ ri 
a 
ee ae 
7 : ae 1M a 
| P 7 Ove 
® 7 + : 
vi yy 
aa, ae P 
tal é a 
; F } 
yi, 7 
vy _ :. 4 i 
, if 4. % 
| ARR ACH Key 
i? i * wy at 
4 Be 5 
y 
i 
' ‘ 
j et - pony Acemute 
‘ ‘ 
' z 
Pal , oO.e) 
i 1 
’ v*r ‘ : ‘ iz 
i oh ( i te 


4 


; : ‘ a ~ : PA 
i a ' th a OS a hy ., a cpa 
Z ¢ ‘ 3 >" alt 


Josr 


mo hy | Bb Ne ‘het 6a ae 





2 ov : an 
“ “-) At i “ 7 fig va . os rf _ Lat 
y. eo. 

’ . re v 

' 
+ 
‘ i i= 

nf 4 Re « r 
i « - ‘ 
; d Pten 


e - y 
a) iy . - a 
‘ - a eh ‘ ° @ ry 
y id 
cay | A : : a 
¢ Ps a at Pe ms a ; 7 > phe enhs 
A: ~  ae.§ Layer, ee men nar 
ae LAS A iat ; e 
el i . coy = ye so 
“" ry a4 ni rite a i ‘ Pra. Ale ViEd! 


Pane Yt ey Lae 8 

ve he ee a et ‘et 

a RS ee a it i EX wii eh age 
i KA wa Wey : aly 


{ 

* é 
1 7 
4 t 

i 

: j a 
Pi 4 
"ea . 

; z 7 
Me ' 
pe al 

-* i # > 
; 


XLV. 


PERSEVERANCE. 


E read in the Bible of an older book than the 
Bible itself, and which is said to have been 
written from the foundation of the world. It is men- 
tioned seven times in Revelation, and once in the 
Epistle to the Philippians. It is called ‘the Lamb’s 
book of life,”” —the book of ‘the Lamb slain from the 
foundation of the world.” Since the acknowledged 
meaning of this last expression is, that the government 
of the world began with the work of Christ in view, 
and was based upon it, ‘the Lamb’s book of life written 
from the foundation of the world’ implies that there is 
a part of our race who, to say the least, were fore- 
known from the foundation of the world as those who 
should be saved. For it is perfectly obvious that the 
book is not represented as containing the names of 
all men. : 
Now is this record, in the book of life, a mere histor- 
ical record of those who will be saved, or is it decretive, 
and the record of an enactment? Plainly the latter ; 


for the mere recording of those who were, of their unas- 


292 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


sisted choice, to be saved, would have no moral effect ; 
the book might as well be written the day after the 
final judgment as from the beginning of time if it were 
a mere historical account. But it will be said, We 
are told that if any man shall take away any thing 
from the inspired book, God will take away his part 
out of the book of life. How can this be done if the 
book of life is, in his case, a decree that he shall be 
saved ? 

For the same reason, and on the same principle, we 
reply, this can be said as when warnings and threaten- 
ings are addressed to those who, God foresees, will 
certainly be saved. If God has decreed their salvation, 
He has also decreed the means to be used in effecting 
it, and those means in the case of all free agents are, 
among other things, appeals to their hopes and fears ; 
in short, they are to be governed by motives, and not 
like inanimate matter. Hence it is proper to address 
those who are certainly heirs of heaven as though they 
might come short of it, falling away, and never being 
restored. By recognizing this and applying it in read- 
ing the Bible, we shall understand how it is that the 
elect are addressed as being, in this world, always in 
danger of perdition. This is one of God’s chosen 
methods to secure their salvation. If it be said, It is 
not consistent with truth and sincerity thus to address 
them, holding up the idea that they are in peril when 
God knows that they will certainly reach heaven, a 


perfect answer is found in the account of Paul’s ship- 


PERSEVERANCE. 293 


wreck. Paul tells the ship’s company that there stood 
before him in a night vision the angel of God assuring 
him that he should certainly stand before Cesar, and that 
God had given him all them that sailed with him. Here 
was a fixed decree. But when the shipmen were about 
to flee out of the ship, ‘Paul said to the centurion 
and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship ye 
cannot be saved.” The means of accomplishing a 
decree are as truly ordained as the result itself. If 
writing the names in the book of life has no effect to 
secure the event there recorded, it is of little conse- 
quence whether the book were written before or after 
the event. 

Let us see what the consequence is if we do not 
believe that God from eternity purposed that some should 
be brought to repentance and be saved. We must then 
suppose that it was with the Most High as it is with 
us when we send out, for example, two hundred invi- 
tations to an entertainment, calculating that about one 
hundred and twenty-five will accept them. ‘There are, 
it is well known, certain laws of proportion in all such 
things. It is so in life insurance. A company issues 
a thousand policies, feeling sure in reckoning that a given 
proportion of lives will be so long continued as to make 
the premiums pay the losses occasioned by the deaths. 
There is a science of risks, laws of averages; they 
enter largely into the business of the world. 

Some appear to think that the plan of human redemp- 


tion was undertaken and is prosecuted in this way. 
25 * 


294. EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


If in human affairs we could substitute something like 
God’s foreknowledge for human sagacity, or increase 
our power of calculation up to a certain degree of per- 
fection, the result, they seem to think, would be the same 
as the effect of God’s foreknowledge upon the salvation 
of men. In fact, that which on the part of God is 
certain knowledge, it is held, is on the part of man 
ingenious calculation, which, on a large scale, arrives 
safely at the same point as absolute knowledge. In 
neither case is it allowed that it is any thing more than 
knowledge, no efficiency being exerted by the all-wise 
God, nor by the sagacious calculator, in bringing to pass 
the things foreseen or anticipated. 

This, we think, is a comfortless and chilling view of 
redemption. What if God has merely written down 
already the names of those who will, of themselves, 
choose to repent? This makes the Lamb’s book of 
life a mere score. It affords little personal advantage 
or consolation. It is lke this: A company of sixty 
men are going to join the army in time of war. Let 
it be certainly known that the commander has had a 
revelation that, of the sixty, fifteen will fall, and forty- 
five will return. You may be one of the fifteen. True, 
it is some comfort to know that the chances are in 
every man’s favor, yet fifteen must die, and each is 
as likely as another to be one of them. Of a thousand 
lives insured, yours may be one of the few which will 
go to make up the item of losses. 

And is this all which God can do for us, namely, 


PERSEVERANCE. 295 


send a recording angel to keep a reckoning of those 
who repent, and if we do so, put our names among 
them? And has He merely told us that, instead of 
doing this progressively through time, He has done it 
all at once and beforehand? and that this constitutes 
the Lamb’s book of life ? 

One objection, among others, to any such interpre- 
tation, is surely the one already noticed as made against 
the decretive nature of the Lamb’s book, an objection 
which now returns with force upon this opposite inter- 
pretation. For if the Lamb’s book of life be a mere 
historical record, how are we to understand that which 
is said about blotting out, or not blotting out, one’s 
name from that book? Blotting out a name from a 
record cannot in any sense be possible, if the record 
of that name be the mere record of something which 
has taken place, namely, repentance and faith. We 
cannot blot out an historical fact. If we choose to say 
that the meaning is, God will not suppress the name 
of one who has repented, that would merely be saying 
that God would speak the truth. It cannot be a subject 
of reward or threatening, any more than for the annalist 
to say, I will not blot out the present year from the 
world’s records, or, I will not suffer this year to remain 
as an historical fact. 

Candor will oblige every one to say that whatever 
theory he may adopt on this subject, questions may 
be put to him which he cannot answer. We find the 


fewest difficulties, however, in our own minds, by adopting 


296 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


the theory which gives to the Most High supreme control 
over the volitions of men, instead of taking a stand, as 
it were, to defend human liberty against Divine encroach- 
ments or the exercise of arbitrary power. We must 
believe in the perfect accountableness of man, and the 
infinite sincerity of God, or we have no heart to preach 
the Gospel; at the same time, we would adopt any 
plausible theory rather than feel that the ruler of the 
universe and his plans are at the mercy of his creatures. 
Let us see how offensively this latter part of the alter- 
native strikes the mind of a Calvinist; for the pictures 
which Rev. John Wesley draws of Calvinism are not 
more repulsive to him, than this is to us. Perhaps by 
looking at these difficult subjects with each other’s eyes, 
we shall be led to the conclusion that we need forbearance 
and modesty in expressing our opinions. ‘This, then, 
is the way in which, perhaps, a Calvinist would repre- 
sent his opponent’s theory : 

All men being left wholly to themselves, and God 
doing nothing to make certain the salvation, of one or 
more souls, for fear of doing injustice to the rest, and 
to avoid the charge of partiality, the scheme of redemp- 
tion by the incarnation, sufferings, and death of the 
Son of God is undertaken without any certainty derived 
from the purposes of God that one soul will accept 
the offers of mercy and be saved. Redemption, then, 
was undertaken as men prosecute commerce, the fish- 
eries, hunting, and the search for gold. Some returns 


must, in the nature of things, be obtained; but it 


PERSEVERANCE. 297 


depends *wholly on our choice whether one, a few, or 
many, or all, will be saved. After the judgment, God 
will sum up the results of the great scheme, and the 
holy universe will feel happy that things have turned 
out as well as they have done; they might have been 
worse, but thanks to the human race that so many of 
them concluded to accept the offers of eternal mercy. 
God’s government, therefore, is administered by his 
subjects, —He, however, having infinite foresight and 
being able to adapt his measures so as to make the best 
of that which the perfect free-will of his creatures may 
choose to do. He decrees nothing relating to the con- 
duct of men; He merely foresees how they will act, 
and then He acts, accordingly. For example, it was 
indispensable that the Saviour should be crucified as a 
sacrifice for sins; a good being could not be crucified 
by good men; wicked men must therefore do it. But 
will they do it? It would be wrong that Christ should 
be ‘delivered by the determinate counsel and _ fore- 
knowledge of God,” for then how could ‘“ wicked hands” 
be to blame for the act? Here is a predicament. But 
the Most High looks forward and discovers that, hap- 
pily for the great scheme, wicked men, if left wholly 
to themselves, will accomplish the deed. <A traitor will 
insinuate himself into the number of the twelve disciples, 
and Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod will act their parts, and 
even the soldiers who shall be detailed to attend the 
crucifixion will part the garments under the cross pre- 


cisely as it was foreseen they would do. In all this 


298 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


no divine agency is concerned, men, being left wholly 
to themselves, perform certain actions in foresight of 
which God made his plans. For, had it been foreseen 
that men would take it upon themselves to act differently, 
the plans of God would all have been otherwise ; for 
how can He influence the human mind where doing 
wrong is concerned, and not be the author of sin? Thus 
the creatures of God determine the course of his admin- 
istration, and there is no supreme control over that 
which is the highest province of administration, the 
human will. 

And why, it is said, do any seem to adopt such a 
theory, or a theory which involves such obvious infer- 
ences? ‘To save the character of God from the imputa- 
tion of partiality, and of being the author of the sins 
of men. We think that this can be done more effect- 
ually and more honorably to all concerned, and in a 
way which gives us a Supreme Being into whose hands 
we can safely place all the thoughts and actions of 
men and devils, leaving them perfectly free and account- 
able, and at the same time enthroning Jehovah over 
all his works, especially over things which most nearly 
concern the happiness of the intelligent universe, and 
these are, above all, the actions of every moral agent; 
for it concerns the happiness of the universe that these 
should be perfectly under the control of God. 

One scheme represents God as making offers to sin- 
ful men oftentimes with great importunity, prospering 


here in his endeavors, and failing there, owing wholly 


PERSEVERANCE. 2599 


to the nature of the respective cases, some being trac- 
table, others obdurate, the purpose of God being to 
save every one whom He can possibly prevail upon to 
accept his proposals. 

We think it more consistent with Scripture to believe 
that God, foreseeing that all men, if left to themselves, 
would perish, ‘out of his mere good pleasure, from all 
eternity elected some to everlasting life,” and “did enter 
into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the 
estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an 
estate of salvation by a Redeemer.” 

Were it not for the foreknowledge of God _ there 
would be no trouble on this subject. How an omni- 
scient, omnipotent, and benevolent God can sincerely 
offer pardon, with entreaty, to men who He foresees 
will not accept the offer, and whom He could as well 
persuade as He does persuade others, is incomprehen- 
sible to many, who therefore adopt the theory that 
God has from eternity made no selection of those who 
are to be saved, and that He does nothing to determine 
the choice of any who repent. 

Is, then, the foreknowledge of God a misfortune in 
the Ruler of the Universe? Would it be better that 
He should not understand from the first in what way 
men will treat his proposals? For if in any case He 
knows that one will reject them, He cannot, upon the 
theory now stated, consistently approach that man with 
offers of pardon. Is it benevolent, even, to let him live, 
in a world where the general offers of mercy may 


300 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


tempt the unhappy man to think, sometimes, that even 
he may be saved? If God treats him in any way 
fitted to change his feelings toward God, is it not cruel ? 
For God sees that he will not be saved; therefore how 
can He, consistently with benevolence, suffer him to 
listen, with others who will repent, to the persuasive 
offers of the Gospel? True benevolence would seem 
to require that his days be cut short, so as to lessen the 
amount of his guilt. 

God must be greatly confined in his selection of 
instruments to accomplish his purposes, if He is obliged 
to choose them only from among those who, of their 
own accord, conclude to repent. Of course there was 
no such thing as election in the case of Saul of Tarsus. 
It was foreseen that speaking to him out of heaven 
would convert him. With another, it would not suc- 
ceed. It happened exceedingly well in this case that 
it did succeed, for Saul was precisely the man for the 
work to be accomplished; but it all depended on the 
caprice of the man himself whether he would accept or 
reject the grace of God, if the theory now alluded to be 
true. Unquestionably there are men among those who 
God sees will not repent, whom it is exceedingly desir- 
able to enlist in his cause; but alas! they are the leaders 
of the opposition, and they cannot be made to change 
sides by any influence which the Almighty power of 
God can employ consistently with their freedom ! 

We believe that the whole tenor of the Bible is 
opposed to such views. We believe that God has made 


PERSEVERANCE. _ . 801 


it certain that some will be saved; that He interposes 
and makes men willing; that He ‘“ has mercy on whom 
He will have mercy, and whom He will He harden- 
eth;’’ that He ensures the final perseverance of every 
one whom He chooses; that “the gifts and calling of 
God are,” on his part, ‘without repentance ;”’ that 
‘¢the Lamb’s book of life’’ is the record of those whom 
it was determined from eternity to make willing and to 
save. And still every man is free and accountable. 

There is a passage in the ninth chapter of Romans 
which seems quietly to disclose the idea that God exerts 
a different influence in the salvation of men from any 
thing which he does in connection with their sinfulness 
or perdition. ‘ Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” 
(the participle is passive), is the expression used in 
speaking of the reprobate; but ‘the vessels of mercy,” 
it is said, ‘“*he had afore prepared unto glory.” At 
the same time, this chapter tells us of divine sover- 
elgnty in the case of Esau and Jacob, and the question, 
‘What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with 
God?’ shows that something more than foresight is 
intended; for there is, of course, no unrighteousness in 
foreknowledge. 

Such passages as these appear to us conclusively to 
show the scripturalness of these things : 

‘These words spake Jesus and lifted. up his eyes 
to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify 


thy Son that thy Son also may glorify thee. As thou 
. 26 


302 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


hast given him power over all flesh that he may give 


eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” 
‘‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” 


‘And this is the father’s will,—that of all which 
he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should 
raise it up at the last day.” ‘‘ For whom he did fore- 
know, he also did predestinate to be conformed to 
the image of his Son.— Moreover whom he did pre- 
destinate them he also called, and whom he called 
them he also justified, and whom he justified them he 
also glorified.” 

‘‘ My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and 
they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life, and 
they shall never perish, and no man shall pluck them 
out of my hand.” 

“Being confident of this very thing that he which 
hath begun a good work in you will perform it unto 
the day of Jesus Christ.” 

‘‘Who are kept (literally, garrisoned) by the power 
of God through faith unto salvation.” 

‘‘In whom after that ye believed ye were sealed with 
that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our 
inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased 
possession, unto the praise of his glory.” 

‘‘ But we are bound to give thanks for you, brethren 
beloved, because God hath from the beginning chosen 
you to salvation, through sanctification of the spirit 
and belief of the truth.” 


PERSEVERANCE. 308 


The certain perseverance of the regenerate is effected 
by a supernatural, divine change wrought in their 
natures, which is indestructible; and by promises, 
warnings, and threatenings employed by the Holy Spirit, 
with all the means of grace under his direction, and 
with his constant influence in their hearts. 

‘Is it necessary to. warn, threaten, promise, and, in 
many other ways powerfully influence, those who, God 
knows, will certainly be saved ?’ 

This is God’s chosen way of fulfilling his purposes 
in their salvation. They do not know that their names 
are in the Lamb’s book of life any further than they 
give scriptural evidence of being born of the Spirit. 

The common reply to this is, If a man will certainly 
be saved, it being so decreed from eternity, he will be 
saved at all events. — Here is a great error. If he is 
to be saved, it being so decreed, he will not be saved 
‘at all events,’ but he will be saved by being warned 
and threatened, by having promises and encouragements 
addressed to him, by fear and by hope, by being 
tempted and resisting temptation. Life and death will be 
continually set before him, blessing and a curse. — But 
these promises and threatenings seem to many a conclu- 
sive proof that the salvation. of no man is made certain. 

In the book of Proverbs there are exhortations to 
industry ; — ‘‘ be diligent to know the state of thy flocks, 
and look well to thy herds;” “go to the ant, thou 
sluggard ;”’ ‘“seest thou a man diligent in his business ? 


he shall stand before kings.’ — God has made it sure 


3804 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


that certain men shall raise crops; but it is equally 
certain that they will comply with these directions ; 
they will not succeed “ at all events,” even though 
success is decreed to them. We are subjects of a moral 
government. A moral government is a government 
administered by motives, not by force. © 

This being so, it is to be expected that such passages 
as these should be found in the Word of God: “ Let 
us, therefore, fear, lest a promise being left us of enter- 
ing into his rest, any of you should seem to come short 
of it.” ‘If the righteous man turn away from his 
righteousness and commit iniquity, all his righteousness 
shall not be remembered.” ‘ Having, therefore, these 
promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from 
all filthiness of the flesh and of the Spirit, perfecting 
holiness in the fear of God.” ‘If any man draw back, 
my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” Add to these 
the promises made by the Saviour at the close of the 
first three chapters of Revelation, “to him that over- 
cometh.” 

There is a passage in connection with this subject 
which is easy of solution upon the foregoing principles. — 
‘For it is impossible for those who were once enlight- 
ened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and the 
good word of God, and the powers of the world to 
come, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 
if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repent- 
ance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God 


afresh, and put him to an open shame.” 


PERSEVERANCE. 205 


Some say, ‘How can Regeneration be more com- 
pletely expressed ? Here, then, the apostasy of regen- 
erate persons is explicitly recognized.’ 

To this it is replied, Granting, for a moment, that 
the regenerate are here intended, and that the conse- 
quences of their apostasy will be as described, it does 
not follow that the regenerate will apostatize ; for it is 
the chosen method of divine grace to warn and threaten 
them, and so to keep them from falling. 

Consider how Peter addresses those whom he calls 
‘ Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father 
through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the 
truth: ’—‘“ Ye, therefore, beloved, seeing that ye know 
these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away 
by the error of the wicked, fall from your own stead- 
fastness.””? There is no more real difficulty in supposing 
such words to be addressed to the elect than the pas- 
sage under consideration. 

To understand this passage, we must notice in what 
connection and for what purpose it is spoken. ‘The 
chapter begins thus: “ Therefore leaving the principles 
of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, 
not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead 
works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of bap- 
tism, and of laying on of hands, and of the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this 
will we do if God permit. For it is impossible for 


those who were once enlightened ”’ — etc. 
26 * 


300 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


It is plain that there is an intimate connection, a 
sequence, between these two parts of the chapter. How 
are we to explain it? ‘The following paraphrase may 
throw light upon it. The apostle seems to say: 

‘These “first principles” of Christianity may be em- 
braced by those who have an intellectual, speculative 
belief of them. Let us beware of resting in such belief ; 
let us go on to experimental knowledge ; for, unless we 
do, we, of course, are in danger of turning back, the 
heart not being established by grace; and to turn back 
to infidelity after having once been so thoroughly and 
firmly instructed and persuaded in our understandings, 
is fatal ; because, to every appeal such an apostate will 
say, I have understood all this, and I am thoroughly 
persuaded that Christianity is a delusion. Where, then, 
can you begin to persuade such a man? he has * trod- 
den under foot the Son of God, he has done despite 
to the Spirit of Grace, he has counted the blood of 
the covenant by which he was sanctified, an unholy 
thing.” 

‘But you, beloved, have gone further than this mere 
intellectual, speculative belief. You have given proof 
that a work of grace has been wrought in your hearts, 
‘in that ye have ministered to the saints and do min- 
ister. And we desire that every one of you do show 
the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the 
end;” and that you will thus avoid the peril of those 


who are merely intellectual in their belief, and are always 


PERSEVERANCE. 307 


hable to apostasy ; from which,.the more firmly they 
have previously been convinced, the more difficult it is 
to recover them. 

One difficulty in the minds of some as to such an 
interpretation may be in the words, “the blood of the 
covenant wherewith they were sanctified,’ — it being 
supposed that this must refer to regenerate persons. 
But we are told that ‘ Jesus also, that he might sanctify 
the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.” 
Here, reference is made to the largest influence of the 
Saviour’s death as a ground of pardon; and the use of 
the word sanctified, in the Old Testament, as seen by 
a Concordance, makes it clear that as subjects of the 
dispensation of grace ‘¢ we are sanctified by the offering 
of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” 

Let us turn to an opposite interpretation. Many 
claim that the passage teaches the doctrine of falling 
from grace, that is, that one who may have experienced 
all which the Holy Ghost ever does for the soul in this 
world, may, nevertheless, fall away. We think that 
the passage itself contains a refutation of this interpre- 
tation. It says that “it is impossible to renew them 
to repentance.” Hence no one who falls from grace 
can ever be converted again. ‘This is contradicted by 
daily experience even among those who hold to the 
interpretation just mentioned, which is mournful in the 
extreme. There is nothing in Calvinism so ‘“ gloomy.” 
We speak peace and hope to the backslider, however 


far he may have gone, ‘*‘ being confident of this very 


308 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you 


will perform it until the day of Christ.’’? 


1 The following anecdote, though some may think it too collo- 


quial, is a good illustration of the subject : 


CALVINISTS AND ARMINIANS. — It is a remark of frequent 
occurrence, that if a pious Calvinist and pious Arminian engage 
together in devotional exercises, they speak the same language, so 
that a stranger to their persons could not tell which was the Cal- 
vinist and which the Arminian. They both ascribe their salvation, 
from first to last, to free, sovereign grace, reigning through the 
righteousness by Jesus Christ, irrespective of human merit or 
human ability. | 

The Arminian will say this 1s because the Calvinist cannot 
carry out his principles, but for the time is forced to take Arminian 
ground. We think not. An enlightened Calvinist is never more 
a believer in the sovereign, efficacious, electing grace of God, 
than when he bows before him in prayer, or exhorts his fellow- 
sinners to come to Christ. It is only when a pious Arminian, 
who knows his own heart, views Calvinism through a distorted 
medium, that he regards it as a monster only to be abhorred and 
opposed. It is one of the happiest features of the present religious 
movement in our country, that persons of different denominations 
and shades of belief meet together in perfect harmony of feeling 
and sentiment, and unite in acts of prayer and praise. 

The following incident forcibly illustrates one of the “ Difficulties 
of Arminianism :” 

Falling from Grace.— Several years ago, when the Rev. Abel 
Pearson, D.D., was travelling on a preaching tour through East 
- Tennessee, he stopped to spend the night with a relative in Sevier 
County. He was a Methodist, and it was not long before the 
Doctor and Mr. 





were conversing very earnestly upon the 


remarked that he was a Metho- 





subject of religion. Mr. 


PERSEVERANCE. 309 


‘But Christ says, ‘Those that thou gavest me I 
have kept, and none of them is lost but the son of 


dist from experience — being himself a living witness “of the truth 
of Mr. Wesley’s doctrine of falling from grace. And he pro- 
ceeded to relate to Dr. Pearson that part of his history which he 
regarded as conclusive on the subject in question. He had, he 
said, experienced a change of heart many years previous, and, 
although he had run well for a season, enjoying the undoubted 
presence of God, yet he had unhappily fallen — lost the last 
vestige of religion. By and by the grace of God sought him out 
again, and he was converted a second time, and then he was 
confident he was a child of God. Thus, in his own experience, 
had he the clearest proof of the truth of the doctrine of falling 
from grace. 

Having concluded this triumphant argument in support of his 
favorite doctrine, he paused for Dr. Pearson to reply; but the 
Doctor only looked solemn, and ejaculated, “ What a pity!” 

Silence ensued for some minutes. At length Dr. Pearson 





asked: “ Are you perfectly sure that you experienced a change 
of heart that first time?” 
Mr. was quite sure. There could be no mistake. He 


believed im a religion that he could feel. He always knew when 
he had religion, and when he had not; and he always knew 
where he got it, and just when he lost it. There was no room for 
mistake. 

“ And are you quite sure,” continued the Doctor, “that you lost 
all the religion you got that first time?” 





“Yes, quite sure,” replied Mr. He was perfectly con- 
scious of having lost his religion — indeed he had become worse 
than he had ever been before. 

“What a pity!” again sighed Dr. Pearson, — “ What a pity!” 


For the second and third time the same questions were put, © 


310 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


perdition.” Hence, some who are given to Christ in 
the covenant of redemption may be lost.’ 

This mistake arises from not considering the meaning, 
in the. New Testament, of the phrase, “‘ none of them — 
save ’? — one of another description. ‘‘ There were many 
widows in Jsrael, but to none of them was Elias sent, 
save to a woman of Sarepta.”’ ‘ And there were many 
lepers in Jsrael,— but none of them was cleansed save 
Naaman the Syrian.” Hence the meaning of Christ is, 
‘none of those whom thou gavest me is lost; but the 
son of perdition is lost.’ Therefore Judas was not of 


those who were given to Christ. 


and the same answers given, Dr. Pearson only responding, “ What 


, what a pity!” . 





a pity, Mr. 
By this time Mr. 
impatiently, “ Why do you say so, Dr. Pearson—why do you say 
‘What a pity ?’” 
“‘ Because,” replied the Doctor, in that peculiarly solemn manner 





was thoroughly nervous, and asked 


which so distinguished him, “because, if you are not mistaken, 
you are a lost man, a lost man! Paul says, ‘If a man fall away, 


> 


it is impossible to renew him again;’ and if you once had religion, 
and have lost it, it is a hopeless case with you—there remains 
nothing in your case but a certain fearful looking for of judgment 
and fiery indignation, that shall devour the adversaries. A lost 
man! a lost man!” 


Mr. 


state of mind. At length a ray of hope beamed upon his counte- 


sat silent for some time, evidently in no very enviable 





nance. ‘ Dr. Pearson,” said he, “I had not thought of the subject 
just in that light before, and, on reflection, J may have been mistaken 
about having had religion that first time; but I thought I had.” — 
Record of O. S. Presbyterian Church. 


- 


PERSEVERANCE. 311 


Apostates were never regenerated. ‘Many will say 
unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not proph- 
esied in thy name, and in thy name cast out devils and 
done many wonderful works? And then will -I profess 
unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye 
' that work iniquity.” ‘‘ They went out from us because 
they were not of us; for if they had been of us, doubt- 
less they would have continued with us.” ‘ Have not 
I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 

The consequences of this doctrine are, that, in the free 
exercise of their own powers and faculties, God will 
keep the regenerate from final apostasy. ‘The Lord 
shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve 
me unto his heavenly kingdom.” ‘ God is faithful, who 
will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are 
able, but will, with the temptation, also make a way 
for your escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” ‘ The 
steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, and he 
delighteth in his way. Though he fall, he shall not 
be utterly cast down; but the Lord upholdeth him 
with his hand.” ‘ The righteous shall hold on his 
way, and he that hath clean hands shall grow stronger 
and stronger.”” ‘I will visit their transgressions with 
the rod, and their iniquity with stripes; nevertheless 
my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, 
nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.”’ 

- ¢But what makes the perseverance of the regenerate 
certain?’ We answer, The promise of God. There 


is nothing in grace to perpetuate itself. God has un- | 


312 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


dertaken to save some of our fallen race, all of whom, 
but for his interposition, would either not have come 
to Him, or, having begun, would, in time of tempta-~ 
tion, fall away. 

‘But this is a dangerous doctrine. It teaches us 
that we may be wholly at our ease, and we shall be 
saved, at all events.’ No one ever taught such a doc- 
trine who had any credit with evangelical believers. 
The doctrine contains a perfect safeguard against pre- 
sumption ; for ‘perseverance in holiness’ is a different 
thing from perseverance in a mere hope and expecta- 
tion of being saved. If one makes a pillow of this 
doctrine, he shows that he is not regenerate; if it 
encourages him to fight the good fight of faith, and 
to heed the warnings and promises of God, and so 
to perfect holiness in the fear of God, he shows that 
God has begun a good work in him; and in all such, 
this work will be carried on until the day of Jesus 
Christ. 

‘But this doctrine amounts to nothing more nor less 
than fate. All that will be necessary at the last day 
will be to open the book of life, and ascertain who 
were written there from the foundation of the world.’ 

This is, in a most impressive way, corrected by a 
passage relating to the final judgment: ‘“ And I saw 
the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the 
books were opened; and another book was opened, 
which is the book of life; and the dead were judged 
out of the things which were written in the books, 


PEESEVERANCE. 313 


according to their works.” The book of life, then, 
is not to be the rule of judgment. The record in 
this book will exactly correspond with the results in 
the books which record our works, and those results, 
by the infinite mercy of God, will be made to fulfil 
his eternal purpose, all, however, in perfect consist- 
ency with our accountableness. 

This doctrine is an exceeding comfort and help to 
weak, trembling man, showing him that having been 
brought to Christ, salvation will be made sure; that 
the Holy Spirit will enable him to continue in the way 
of obedience to the end. The emblem in the Pilgrim’s 
Progress, where one threw water on a fire, which, never- 
theless, grew brighter, because a hand behind was con- 
stantly ministering oil to the flame, expresses the truth 
with regard to our sanctification. ° 

This doctrine does no injustice to any. If some are 
unwilling to repent and believe, and to strive after 
holiness, there is no ground for complaint if God per- 
suades and enables others so to do. It does not pre 
vent one soul from coming to Christ who would other- 
wise believe on Him. On the contrary, it makes it 
sure that whoever will come shall never perish. Every 
one can prove that his name is in the book of life by 
complying with certain directions. But, one says, ‘I 
cannot comply unless my name be there.’ These 
words, uttered in a right spirit, would lead to salva- 
tion. Indeed, we never come to Christ till we feel our 


helpless and lost estate. A querulous inebriate, raising 
27 


814 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


the cup to his lips, may say, ‘ Let the Most High par- 
alyze my appetite, if he would have me reform; He 
has saved others.’ Or, one equally abandoned may 
say, ‘I am so sinful and weak, my will is so unstable, 
I am so hard and blind, that, unless God interposes and 
saves me, I perish.’ ‘This man would go down to his 
house justified rather than the other. His confession 
of helplessness would be the first step towards salva- 
tion. ; 

Some will certainly be saved. There is a book of 
life. It was written from the foundation of the world, 
and it is the Lamb’s book, containing, from the begin- 
ning of time, the results of redemption. The names 
which are there will never be blotted out. Through 
trials, temptation, conflicts, and with many doubts and 
fears, sometimes ready to despair, and again plucking 
up courage and looking wholly to Christ, those who 
are written in that book can exult —‘ Nay, in all these 
things we are more than conquerors through him that 
loved us.’ All the attributes of God are engaged to 
bring every one to heaven whose name is written there. 

It is equally true that any name not already there 
never will be added to that book. It was written ‘ from 
the foundation of the world.’? Hence it is finished, 
and as no name can be erased, no one can be inserted. 
Every one whose name is not there will continue to 
procrastinate, or to reject Christ, or to cavil, or to 
neglect the great salvation, and when at last the dead 


are judged out of the things written in the books, these 


PERSEVERANCE. Shs 


books will confirm the book of life in its omission of 
those names. 

‘What shall we then say to these things?’ Plainly 
this: ‘If God be for us, who can be against us?’ 

Some may say, ‘I will take the risk of election, 
reprobation, perseverance, or failure, and let come on 
me what will.’ This, surely, is not one of ‘the things 
that accompany salvation.”’ 

Others may say: I would give every thing to know 
that my name is in the book of life. 

We may inquire of such, what they would do if they 
were sure that their names are there ? 

Would they wait for God to convert them, without 
effort on their own part? Perhaps they answer, No, 
we would at once begin the Christian life. But if 
they do this now, their names are proved to be already 
there. ‘He that believeth —is passed from death unto 
life.” 


In concluding this general subject of Free Agency 
and Divine Efficiency, one thing is of such practical 
importance that it may be well to give it special promi- 
nence, in this place. 

Human responsibility is the truth which all other 
truths connected with this subject must be employed to 
enforce. This is the side of the system which must 
be turned toward man, while the equally great and 


essential things in the system pour all their rays into 


316 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


it. Some greatly err in the order in which they place 
and use these truths when they seek the conversion and 
sanctification of men. It is true, for experience proves 
it, that the doctrines of Election and Perseverance are 
a powerful means of awakening and conversion, but it 
is because they are then used as a pressure to set home 
the truth of responsibility. They are the arm of the 
weapon, but this is the point and the barb. Let 
Election and Perseverance be presented as motives to 
effort, and they are mighty; let them be presented as 
abstract truths, and they lull the sinner and the Chris- 
tian to sleep. The doctrines of the Gospel injudiciously 
applied become practical errors. We would not think 
of pouring at random from any jar in the apothecary’s 
shop, and yet every jar is, for its intended use, as good 
as the rest. . Every truth of the Gospel can be so em- 
ployed as to do harm, though, it must be added, that 
it ceased to be a truth when taken out of its connection 
with other truths. Two striking illustrations of the 
proper way to employ the doctrines of grace are found, 
one, in this exhortation following a doctrinal statement : 
** Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ,—be ye 
reconciled to God;” and another, in this: “ Having, 
therefore, these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse 
ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, per- 
fecting holiness in the fear of God.” 

We do not honor God, though: we may suppose that 
we are doing it, when we suppress or lower the doc- 


trine of human responsibility with a view to elevate the 


PERSEVERANCE. oi 


sovereionty of God. He has chosen to govern men 
net as he controls matter, but as free. For an imper- 
fect illustration, — we know that life is a far greater 
manifestation of divine power and skill when it acts 
by muscles and wings as instruments of volition in the 
creature, than though the creature were an automaton, 
moved like a ship by the wind, or a machine by steam 
power. Perhaps there is no greater mystery in the 
divine administration than this, that God has complete 
control of the will, and at the same time, that the agent 
is completely responsible. How this is can no more be 
shown than we can explain how life, as we term it, 
acts upon the muscles. God can harden Pharaoh’s 
heart and yet Pharaoh shall be wholly to blame, and 
not only so but confess it, and say to Moses, “I have 
sinned against the Lord your God, and against you.” 
God can make Judas betray Christ, and with determi- 
nate counsel and foreknowledge He can use wicked hands 
to crucify and slay Him, and still hold each sinner 
justly accountable for his doings. 

That this will ever be explained further than we now 
see it, admits of a question. Perhaps it will forever be 
the occasion of cavil and blasphemy to wicked spirits 
who will never cease to accuse God of injustice, par- 
tiality, arbitrary power, saying, ‘‘ For who hath resisted 
his will?’? Or the clearer perception and the forced 
acknowledgment of it may excite the evil passions of 
the lost, by showing them that God used their wicked- 


ness for a good end, and that they have not disappointed 
27 * 


318 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


nor circumvented the Almighty. But to those who 
fear and obey Him, it will ever be their highest joy 
to fall, like the four and twenty elders, at his feet, 
and say, ‘For thou hast created all things, and for 
thy pleasure they are and were created.” The will 
of intelligent beings and its moral government consti- 
tute that feature of creation which is the chief glory | 


of the divine administration. 


AV. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 







re 2? 
~ we 


at Fe en - _ ee re 
~ WOrTo eT gate Peres 


sa 
. 


alee | 


? 
* 
‘ } ob es 
7 —« ° e —_ 
ary , q nt! <i 2) 7 
‘ rc | = 
‘ 
‘ 
4 7 
. 
1 
Oh - . 4° VAG 
. if te 2 
¢ 
t 
= * 
. > aw i 
‘ . 
o 
Wo an : P 
i . j 
. - 
ivyd ? ‘ ’ f 
¥ 
a . th 4 pay 
; 7 
Wey tar eg (tag 
| R 
4 PS 
» en L. 


" ie mAs freee = ay 
A . ‘ : 


ae Ay ml ~ . Las 
oe a p ek viet y 4 — : 7 ‘ 


aa 
tae at 
i '"J9) ' 4 
i : i 


’ t 
; 
’ . - - ¥ sj! 
‘ , 
—s C) . - » 
‘ ' ‘¥ ” YAY 
raul 4 . i. & : oe 
7 ry : ‘is of 
‘ 7 r . 
< M2 ul } 4 Caan Wa) 
“ ¢ r x a; " 


da Alig 
Golivwis bh VAIN +b bie kek GVO. 


HE Bible tells us of perfect men since the apos- 
tasy, and they are designated as such even by the 
Most High. Noah ‘was perfect in his generations. 
Of Job, it is said, —‘“* And that man was perfect and 
upright.” — We are told that ‘God will not cast away 
a perfect man.’ ‘Mark the perfect man and behold 
the upright.2. The New Testament says, ‘ Let patience 
have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and 
entire, wanting nothing.’ “That ye may stand perfect 
and complete in all the will of God.” “That we may 
present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.” We read 
of ‘perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” ‘In him 
is the love of God perfected.’ ‘ If we love one another, 
his love is perfected:in us.” ‘ Put on charity, which 
is the bond of perfectness.” 
- Is sinless perfection intended in these expressions ? 
And, Is sinless perfection attainable in this life? 
Some say that these expressions imply that men 


can attain to a sinless state before death; that it is im- 


322 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


plied in some of these phrases, and in others like them ; 
and that they themselves have attained to that state. 

A principal argument relied upon by the advocates 
of sinless perfection in this life, is, that God commands 
us to be perfect, and that God would not command that 
which we cannot perform.— Moreover, it is said that 
God has promised to effect this sinless condition in all 
who will comply with the condition, which is, Absolute 
faith in the justifying righteousness of Christ. 

We meet this argument in favor of sinless perfection, 
at once, by an explicit denial of the assumption on 
which it rests, which is, That God will not command 
us to do that which we have no moral ability to per- 
form. This we hold to be a delusion. For if God 
commanded men to do only that which they are 
morally capable of doing (bodily and mental incapacity, 
of course, being out of the question), it would follow 
that the law of God must adapt itself to every man’s 
disposition, and there is no one perfect standard of 
obligation. Let a man be so far indisposed to do right 
that custom and habit shall become a second nature; 
then, in proportion to this sinful inability his obliga- 
tion diminishes. A man has, therefore, only to become 
exceedingly wicked, and he will annihilate all moral 
obligation. 

Granting our nature to be in a depraved condition, 
and that no mere man, since the fall, has kept the 
commandments of God, but ‘doth daily break them in 
thought, word, and deed,’ shall God propose a lower 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. Soe 


standard of duty? Shall it be said, ‘Take the patri- 
archs and prophets for your standard; you cannot 
excel them; aim at their attainments’? or, shall it be 
said, ‘‘ Be ye holy, for I am holy”? ‘Be ye there- 
fore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect’ ? 
Every good man, however conscious of imperfection 
and of inability to reach the standard of divine holi- 
ness, would naturally regard it as a calamity to have 
a human standard of excellence proposed to him. In- 
stead of its being a reason for despondency, it is hon- 
orable to man that the divine nature is made the stand- 
ard to which he must aspire. 

We must bear in mind a self-evident truth, that obli- 
gation is not limited by moral ability. A man may be 
under obligation to do that which he is morally unable 
to perform. It never can cease to be Satan’s duty to 
love God, though he will forever be morally incapable 
of doing so. 

But we read, *“* And the very God of peace sanctify 
you wholly, and I pray God your whole spirit, and 
soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming 
of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth 
you, who also will do it.” 

Other passages may be quoted, of the same tenor, 
which, however, prove conclusively that something 
other than sinless perfection is here contemplated. 

“Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye 
may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 


“That we may present every man perfect in Christ 


324 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Jesus.” ‘That we should be holy and without blame 
before him in love.’ There is also a class of passages, 
referred to in the opening of this lecture which, to say 
the least, are as strong as these,—men being called 
“perfect”? by the Most High himself. We also read 
of an express command from God addressed to an indi- 
vidual, requiring of him perfection: ‘* And when Abram 
was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared 
unto him and said, I am the Almighty God; walk 
before me and be thou perfect.” 

Now the Word of God which contains these things, 
declares that ‘by the deeds of the law shall no flesh 
be justified.” We find proofs of imperfection in the 
very men who are expressly called “perfect.” If Job 
deserved to be called ‘perfect’? when God began to 
afflict him, he surely was no worse when God had tried 
him in the furnace; yet even then we hear him say, 
‘¢T abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes.” Even 
such a man as the beloved John, in his old age, says, 
‘“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and 
the truth is not in us.” If Paul could ever have arrived 
at sinless perfection in this world it was time that he 
should have reached it at the date of the Epistle in 
which he says, ‘‘ Brethren, I count not myself to have 
apprehended.”’ ‘Not as though I had already attained, 
either were already perfect, but I follow after.” —He 
says, long after his conversion, and when he had such 
experience in religion that he could write the Epistle 


to the Romans, ‘I find a law in my members warring 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 825 


against the law of my mind, and bringing me into cap- 
tivity to the law of sin which is in my members.’ It 
is a point in controversy whether he is here describing 
a regenerate or an unregenerate man. One thing is 
certain: All who have not, in their own esteem, arrived 
at sinless perfection, testify that their own present expe- 
rience is expressed in those words. 

How can it be that a man is designated as ‘“ perfect,” 
when it is expressly denied that a sinless condition is 
reached here? For Job himself said, “If I say, I am 
perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.” And another 
says, “There is not, a just man on earth that doeth 
good and sinneth not.” Are we to understand that 
an imperfect condition in a good man is counted for 
perfectness; that the law of God has lowered its stand- 
ard; that the precious metal is now so coined that a 
mixture of the pure and the base passes at the original 
value of the unalloyed currency ? 

The word “ perfect,’’ as used in Scripture in speaking 
of human character, means, An upright, pious life. 
As applied to human nature, perfectness does not mean 
the same as when applied to angels. The artificial 
light in a room may be perfect; but it is not the per- 
fectness of sun-light. An image of plaster may be 
perfect; the marble statue has perfectness of a different 
order. Human perfectness is, under the Gospel, con- 
sistent with being destitute of any thing which could 
be a justifying righteousness; that is, a man may be, 


in the scriptural sense, “‘a perfect man’’ who, judged 
28 


326 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


by the perfect law of God, is utterly condemned. Noah, 
Daniel, and Job, judged by their works, could no more 
claim heaven than the penitent thief; yet the Most 
High refers to them as “ perfect” men. One who dis- 
allows sin, whose enlightened and sincere endeavor to 
please and serve God gives character to his daily life, 
is a “perfect”? man, even while he is condemning him- 
self and when if tried by his conformity to the law of 
God he would utterly fail of salvation. Perfect men in 
the sense in which the Bible calls them such, are de- 
scribed in the first verses of the hundred and nineteenth 
Psalm, in which there is no higher proof of possessing 
the thing described than the verse which represents 
the writer as yet striving after it, —‘“*O that my ways 
were directed to keep thy statutes.” All this is con- 
sistent with imperfection and frailty, and with  self- 
loathing and shame. ‘The prayers of Daniel and Ezra 
are illustrations. 

There is an ‘“ Evangelical obedience,” that is, a com- 
pliance with the terms of the Gospel, which leads to 
justification. They who have evangelical obedience 
have that perfectness of which the Bible speaks. Peter 
refers to it when he calls his Christian brethren, ‘“ Elect 
—vunto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.” 
Leighton, speaking of these words, says, ‘* This obedi- 
ence, though imperfect, yet hath a certain Gf I may 
so say) imperfect perfection.” 

But sinful men, relying on the suffermgs and death 


of Christ as the ground of their justification, are deliv- 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 327 


ered from condemnation ; they are accepted as righteous. 
This is not because the obedience of Christ makes up 
their deficiency ; but they are “ justified,’ in conse- 
quence of their faith in him. We have already, at 
the close of the preceding subject, considered the dif 
ference between pardon and justification. But men 
are not called ‘“ perfect’? merely because they are ‘‘ jus- 
tified ;”’ perfectness, in the scriptural sense, implies and 
requires endeavor, and sustained endeavor, but without 
any specification of time before which the endeavor 
cannot be verified. A young convert may as truly be 
called ‘* perfect”? as an aged Christian; for his endeavor 
to walk so as to please God may be as uniform and 
sincere. 

The meaning of justification is, There is no co:- 
demnation. ‘This justification is not the same as per 
sonal goodness, though it is a means of effecting it. It 
is not a declaration of innocence, but of satisfaction on 
the part of the law, its requirements having been met 
by something which is accepted as an equivalent; the 
sinner is not condemned, because his faith is ‘‘ counted 
to him for righteousness.” Neither is there any thing 
progressive in this; it is instantaneous, it is begun and 
finished in a moment. “ He that believeth is passed 
from death unto life.” . Christ is not our personal good- 
ness; his character is not transferred to us, but his 
sufferings and death are imputed to us; not ascribed, 
but, reckoned to our account, in the way of acquittal. 


When this has taken place, there remains yet a work 


328 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


to be undertaken. It is hard to say how much imper- 
fection may remain, and the man be regenerate. Here 
is the region of sanctification. In some, there are low 
measures of conformity to God, while, nevertheless, faith 
in Christ is sincere, and the man is, for his faith, jus- 
tified. 

It might be in the power of God to create holiness 
as He creates gravitation, or electricity. But it would 
be a different thing from the holiness of a moral agent. 
Holiness is a union of divine agency, and of moral 
action on the part of the creature. However much 
we may ascribe to divine efficiency, the action of 
an accountable being is, of course, indispensable in holi- 
ness; for God cannot repent for us, nor believe, nor 
obey. It is evident, therefore, that conformity to God 
must vary in those who are, nevertheless, justified ; — 
justification admitting of no degrees, but sanctification 
being progressive, and in all conceivable measures. 

When one is making endeavors after conformity to 
God, striving that his life shall be governed’ by the 
divine precepts, his conscience also being enlightened, 
and.in accordance with the revealed rule of duty, he 
is called “a perfect man,” notwithstanding imperfec- 
tions, inconsistencies, and failures. But how far these 
things may continue without a just forfeiture of that 
name and character, omniscience alone, which sees the 
heart, can decide. One thing is certain (if the _his- 
tories of the very best men and women are a guide),— 


the perfect man will have a continual sense of failure, 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 329 


and will be always deploring his unworthiness. Every 
one may have the highest opinion of him, while he lies 
in the dust before God, on account of his deficiencies 
and sins. And, indeed, he is never freed from just 
condemnation, if judged by the state of his heart and 
life, not even for a single hour. He deserves con- 
demnation even while he is in the act of trusting in 
Christ. The Saviour’s merits, as already said, do not 
make up a deficiency, strike a balance; the man’s works 
are no part of the ground on which he is_ justified. 
‘“‘ Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein 
he pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous 
in his sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed 
to us and received by faith alone.” 

Conformity to God, in its different degrees, is the 
ground of reward, but not of justification. Good works 
are, in their place, as essential as faith, for there is no 
faith without good fruit. But who would build his 
house on plaster of Paris, or lime-stones, or glass, or 
pine, for a foundation? Yet when we come to the 
ceilings and stucco-work, the windows and the whole 
of the inside, these materials are as indispensable as 
the foundation ; but they cannot take its place. ‘ Other 
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 
Jesus Christ.” The law, which cannot justify us, is 
still the only rule of duty. The atonement removes 
our condemnation when we accept it, and it also pre- 
pares the way for our increasing conformity to God, but 


it does not make up a balance for us with which to 
28 * 


330 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


discharge our indebtedness. Christ atones for the first 
sin, and for the last, and for all. Should any one of 
us live as long as Methuselah and be preéminently good, 
still he must come to the same point with the penitent 
thief and be saved by grace; at the same time his 
goodness would be most largely rewarded, while it 
could not be the ground of his pardon. 

Some earnestly long to arrive at a state in which 
they will no more be subject to the power of temptation 
and to failure. ‘There is no such state in this world. 
We might as well say that there is a state of not slip- 
ping on ice. Our walk through life must be like 
walking in slippery weather, and we shall constantly 
need to bear in mind the exhortation, ‘“‘ Let him that 
thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.”” We shall 
never have as much sanctification in this world as we 
desire, unless we get to be, in our own esteem, sinless. 
We must make up our minds that this longing after 
entire goodness, this **O for a closer walk with God,” 
this panting for the water-brooks, this ‘following hard 
after Thee,” is to continue, and to increase, while we 
live; while fustification is without degrees; and so is 
regeneration. Paul intimates our constant liability to 
sin, when he describes the Christian soldier: ‘ Where- 
fore take unto yourselves the whole armor of God— 
and having done all, to stand,’ —not go into tent, but 
“stand, therefore,’ — sword in hand, the shield ready, 
like a man in a battle, having disposed of one foe, pre- 


pared for the next assault. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. Sou 


As to those who wish to arrive at a comfortable, 
easy state, in which they will be free from the power 
of temptation and spiritual trial, we say, It would not 
be well for them in this probationary and disciplinary 
state. A canal passage to heaven, free from storms 
and danger of wreck, is not good; an ocean voyage 
is better for the character. We need conflicts to 
develop the spiritual susceptibilities, and to strengthen 
us. But there is a way in which those who long for 
peace may obtain it. It is by crediting the assurances 
of the Bible with regard to perfect justification through 
Christ; by believing that one word, “Therefore, being 
justified by faith, we have peace with God through 
our Lord Jesus Christ.” A book was written many 
years ago by Rev. Mr. Stoddard, of Northampton, 
the title of which, in the style of those days, contains 
a great truth: “The Safety of Appearing Before God 
in the Righteousness of Jesus Christ.” If we should 
see the man Christ Jesus at the bar of God, we should 
have no fears for the result as it regarded Him. We 
shall be as safe there as He, if “found in him, not hav- 
ing our own righteousness, but the righteousness which 
is of God by faith.” All our goodness, were it a 
thousand times more than it is, cannot begin to save 
us; but, saved through Christ’s righteousness, our 
goodness, our works, will be the ground of reward, 
and in no sense of justification. But some appear to 
be unwilling thus to depend on Christ; and they seek 


for a consciousness of being perfect as the ground of 


832 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


their peace. They should distinguish between a con- 
science void of offence, and freedom from a degenerate 
nature; between a heart fixed on God, seeking his face, 
mourning at departures from Him, and a consciousness 
of being sinless, or perfectly conformed, in heart, word, 
and deed, to the ‘*commandment which is exceeding 
broad.” David, in the eighteenth Psalm, dwells on the 
joy of a good conscience; he exults in it; he represents 
God as riding in a chariot and flying to his aid on 
the wings of the wind, and rewarding him according 
to his ways, ‘according to the cleanness of my hands 
in his eyesight:” But this was perfectly consistent 
with a sense of utter unworthiness, and of being in a 
perishing state without the mercy of God. 

Sinless perfection, as a prevailing error in a community, 
very soon cures itself, by degenerating into looseness of 
life, or ceasing under the corrective power of experience. 
It is like the self-limiting diseases of childhood. But 
the error is pernicious, because it lets down moral obli- 
gation to our own low attainments. Then, if tempted, 
the perfectly sanctified man is liable to reason in this 
way: I have done thus and thus, but it cannot be sin, 
for I am sinless; hence it cannot be wrong. Such 
persons are either deceivers or deceived. They may 
be both. Yet many of those who dream of sinless 
perfection in this world are amiable, and of a suscep- 
tible, tender spirit, who sincerely desire to be delivered 
from the painfulness of a state in which they must ever 


be conscious of coming short of the divine requirements. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 336 


These must learn that this degenerate nature will go 
with them to the grave, with a hurt which regeneration 
does not cure; that in being born again they have 
new tastes, new desires, new hopes and fears, which 
will meet with resistance from their natural appetites 
and passions, and that there will be long war within 
them, between the house of David and the house of Saul, 
the tide of affairs, however, being turned and gaining 
strength in the right direction. In such a state they 
must be willing to live,—a state of watchfulness, prog- 
ress, and of perpetual endeavor to be conformed to 
God. They must not think that degrees of sanctifica- 
tion follow inevitably from one first act of faith with- 
out intermediate efforts; for such a theory is a fruitful 
source of presumption. They must account that when 
they are “called,” and ‘ justified,’ they are “ sanctified ”’ 
in the same sense in which they are “ glorified;” “ for 
whom He called—them He also glorified ;”” — that is 
something yet to be obtained, though in a sense already 
conferred ; so with bemg “sanctified.” They must 
never think to arrive at a state in this world in which 
they cannot use every petition in the Lord’s Prayer, 
daily, saying “‘ Forgive us our trespasses,” so long as 
they say “Give us this day our daily bread.” They 
must live in a state of justification continually; for as 
the blood must this moment pass through the lungs and 
be oxygenated, as it did when we drew our first breath, 
so faith in Christ must be continuous, its first act not 


sufiicing for the present hour, though by the arrange- 


834 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


ment of grace there was connected with it a promise 
that it will be performed “ until the day of Jesus Christ.” 
Instead of murmuring that they are under obligations 
to be perfect, while they cannot be so in this world, 
they should esteem it, as before remarked, an infinite 
honor to have it said to them, “Be ye holy, for I am 


y) 


holy ;” and, ‘Be ye, therefore, perfect, even as your 
Father in heaven is perfect.” What lower standard 
would they desire should be proposed to them? Shall 
the law of God come down to every man’s several 
ability ? If our inability be culpable (which is proved 
by our being able to love every thing but God), it is 
right for God to command that which sin may disen- 
able us to do. 

“He that overcometh shall inherit all things ;’? — but 


’ till the end, and when we 


we have not ‘ overcome’ 
are dying, however near to God we may have lived, 
there will be a necessity for overcoming faith to resist 
temptation. In proportion to successful efforts in con- 
quering self and sin, and in being conformed to God, 
will be his love and approbation. Here is the field 
for discipline, growth, attainment; here we ‘lay up in 
store a good foundation against the time to come,’ and 
‘lay hold on eternal life ;’ here we determine the degrees 
of our likeness to Christ and of our future reward; 
while we come to a common level when the question 
is, How shall man be just with God? Dr. Watts well 


expresses this idea : 


on 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 335 


“ Among thy saints will I appear 
With hands well washed in innocence; 
But when J stand before thy bar 
The blood of Christ is my defence.” 


There is no such thing as ‘Second Conversion,” 
if the word be used as synonymous with Regeneration. 
We cannot be twice spiritually “ born again,’”’ any more 
than we can twice have natural birth. But some Chris- 
tians do experience, from time to time, marked eleva- 
tions in their Christian character and life; they seem 
to reach higher levels, and they proceed upon them with 
joy. In this sense they may experience ‘ quickenings’ 
through life, rising to higher measures of love and 
obedience. We may all experience this, according as 
Christ dwells in us and we in Him. But one evidence 
of it will be that we discover more and more our sin- 
fulness and unworthiness ; for if there is one concurrent 
testimony of Christian experience in the church of all 
ages, it is this, that progress in holiness is marked by 
a more profound sense of our lost and ruined state, 
and by the renunciation of our own state or works as 
the ground of acceptance with God. And when we 
speak of rising to a higher state in the Christian life, 
we are not to delude ourselves with the idea that we 
have got into a new zone, where temptation cannot 
come, and where imperfections and frailties will be less ; 
we properly mean by it that, by the help of Christ, we 
are, for the time, more susceptible to spiritual motives, 


that earthly things disturb us less; but we are sadly 


~ 


336 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


blinded if we do not perceive that, even then, we need 
the justifying righteousness of Christ as truly as we 
did when we were dead in trespasses and sins. 

Paul never appears before us with expressigns of 
satisfaction at his Christian attainments; the idea does 
violence to all our associations with his character. Job 
asserts his innocence of certain imputations; David ex- 
ults in being vindicated from unjust charges; but the 
thought of pretending to a sinless state on the part of 
any good man in the Old or New Testament is not 
encouraged by any thing in their words or actions. 
President Edwards says, ‘I call that a profession of 
godliness which is a profession of the good things in 
which godliness consists, and not a profession of our 
good estate.” 

It would be strange indeed if, while the works of 
man are all of them stamped with imperfection, he could 
himself be perfect in his conformity to God. He can- 
not even draw a straight line, nor walk far upon one; 
how shall he. keep that law which reaches even to “ the 
thoughts and intents of the heart” ? 


XVI. 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE 


a) ite } ‘aia oy Pe 


ee L hus i 


ay Reet, iss Wy ‘i Oe 





XVI. 


ee Nel Nee D TATE SrA ick 


ANY appearances certainly favor the idea that 
the soul does not exist separate from the body. 
This is materialism. The operations of the human 
mind are now observed only in connection with a human 
body, and it is easy to argue that they exist only in con- 
nection with the body. We see one faculty after another 
disappear in consequence of injury to the brain. In 
a swoon, or trance, there is apparently a total suspension 
of mental exercises. The inference of some is that the 
soul cannot exist without the body, and therefore that the 
soul is indeed only the brain itself in an active state. 

Dr. Priestly and others say that sensation and thought 
are properties of the brain, and the brain being stimulated, 
thought is an inherent function, as much so as the circu- 
lation of the blood. 

But we are continually admonished that the intimate 
connection and dependence between two things do not 
prove the two things to be the same. It is well said that 
one who had heard a violin but had never seen the 


player, perceiving that when the instrument is broken, 


340 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


or when the strings are gone, there is no music, might 
infer that the violin alone made the music. But the 
intelligent hand which played upon those strings con- 
tinues, independently of the violin, although, in making 
the music, it depended upon the instrument. 

It is certain that in this world the manifested action 
of the mind depends upon the brain. All that we 
contend for is, that thought is not the same thing with 
matter, that the soul is immaterial, and that its existence 
does not depend upon its union with matter. 

Materialists say that if the soul be separate from matter, 
and independent, we might expect that it would fully 
assert this before death; that in sleep or in a swoon 
it would give rational, coherent signs of its being able 
to act independently of the state of the body. They 
say, moreover, that if the soul be immaterial and can- 
not be destroyed, this must be true of all its faculties ; 
whereas one and another faculty, as we often observe, 
may perish, while others remain unimpaired. 

Dr. Priestly, and those of his school, maintain that there 
is no separate state of the soul; that the body is the seat 
of all perception and action; and that the resurrection 
is merely the starting up of the powers of body and mind 
after an interval of inaction. 

Dr. Priestly held that these three doctrines were insep- 
arable, namely, Materialism, Socinianism, and Philosoph- 
ical Necessity (or a literal mechanism in the human will, 
as opposed to freedom of the will, or its government 


through motives). Socinianism was the source of his 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 34) 


other theories. Socinianism is the denial of any thing 
supernatural in Christ, and Dr. P.’s materialism was 
intended to justify such denial; for if materialism could 
be proved, of course it would establish Socinianism, that 
is, it would destroy the doctrine of the Saviour’s Deity. 
Spirit and matter, having no property in common, cannot 
coexist. Dr. P. allows that God is a Spirit, but he asserts 
that man is only organized, thinking matter, with no 
separate soul, it being impossible for spirit to be conjoined 
with matter; hence, of course, Christ has not two 
natures. His human mind, even, was only his brain 
in a state of excitation. 

He does not tell us how the Infinite Spirit could act 
on matter in creation, and in the organization of things, 
nor explain why spirit cannot reside in matter and act 
by it, as well as act upon it. 

Moreover, if spirit and matter have no properties in 
common, and therefore cannot exist in connection one 
with another, nor act one upon the other, he does not 
tell us how God could create all things out of nothing ; 
for, what properties have spirit and nothing in common 
with each other? 

Dr. Samuel Clarke’s argument against Mr. Dodwell 
is regarded by many as an able confutation of ma- 
terialism. It is a doctrine of materialism that matter 
can be organized so as to think. 

Says Dr. Clarke, for substance, If matter can think, 
if the power of consciousness be inherent in it, thought 


and consciousness must belong to its parts. For illus- 
29 * 


342 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


tration of his meaning we may say, Here is a piece 
of bread. It has certain properties which are inherent. 
We break the bread into two, or twenty, pieces. Each 
piece is as really bread as before it was broken, and 
therefore each piece has all the inherent properties of 
the whole. , 

Now we take the human brain. If thinking be an 
inherent property of the brain as a whole, if thought 
is essential to matter existing as human brain, why 
should not parts and particles of the brain possess and 
exhibit all the properties of the whole, as in the case 
of the bread? Then all its parts must be composed 
of innumerable consciousnesses. That being so, the 
union of its parts cannot make one individual con- 
sciousness. ‘There must be as many consciousnesses as 
there are particles of matter in the brain. Their be- 
ing arranged into one organism cannot destroy the 
original properties of the particles, for no foreign quali- 
fying power comes in among them, and therefore if 
matter can think, its particles must think, and there 
can be no individuality in thought. 

He argues from this that the soul, whose power of 
thinking is undeniably one individual consciousness, is 
not matter. — Perhaps the argument is not unworthy 
of the objection, and that it is all which the objection 
deserves. 

Mr. Farmer, of great repute in the theological world 
for his writings on subjects kindred to the one before 


us, derives a strong argument for the immateriality and 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 343 


separate existence of the soul from the ‘“‘ General Prevy- 
alence of the Worship of Human Spirits,’’ — the title 
of one of his works. He says in the Introduction, that 
if human spirits were worshipped in the days of Moses, 
the word death could not then have denoted more than 
the cessation of bodily life, for if death had implied the 
extinction or insensibility of the soul, the dead would 
not have been worshipped as gods. And if Moses 
knew that the soul became insensible at death, or that 
it had no independent existence, he could most unan- 
swerably have opposed the practice of spirit worship ; 
but we never find him resorting to this mode of refu- 
tation. So far from adopting this theory of the materi- 
ality of the soul, he expressly tells us that after the 
bedy of Adam was created, he did not become a living 
soul till God had breathed into him the breath of life. 
This language is not used in connection with the brutes, 
showing that something was imparted to man by the 
Creator besides a bodily organization. This is important 
in connection with the subject of the annihilation of the 
wicked, — to which reference will be made in the next 
Lecture. 

Without discussing the question whether the people 
of God were ignorant of the doctrine of immortality for 
four thousand years, it is beyond a doubt that life and 
immortality are set in the clearest light by Christ in the 
Gospel. It is a relief to escape from speculations, to the 
infallible source of truth. The world at large does not 


appreciate nor even understand these philosophical dis- 


344 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


putations; the Bible has none of them; it settles every 
thing without explanation, leaving us to exercise our 


ingenuity as we please in philosophical speculations. 


To begin with passages of Scripture which’ come first 
to mind, we hear the Saviour on the cross say, ‘ Father, 
into thy hands I commend my spirit.” In his case, 
surely, there was something besides a material substance, 
something more than the thinking head, something which 
was to exist and to be cared for separate from the brain 
which was fast becoming insensible. 

“And I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid 
of them that kill the body and after that have no more 
that they can do; but I will forewarn you whom ye shall 
fear: fear him which after he hath killed, hath power 
to cast into hell, yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” 

The separation of the soul from the body, and 
its distinct existence, appear in these words: ‘ And 
it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried 
by angels into Abraham’s bosom; the rich man also 
diéd and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes 
being in torments.” Grant, for argument’s sake, that this 
is only a parable;—in which of the other parables 
is any thing supposed, or employed as machinery of the 
story, which is not literally true? Not one. 

‘¢ Handle me and see,” says Christ to his disciples after 
his resurrection ; ‘‘ for a spirit hath not flesh and bones 
as ye see me have.”’ 


“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 345 


“The Sadducees say that there is neither angel nor 
spirit, but the Pharisees confess both.” Paul at Jerusalem 
used this to turn the popular feeling in his favor. 

‘“¢ Knowing that while we are at home in the body, we 
are absent from the Lord.” ‘ We are confident, I say, 
and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to 
be present with the Lord.” 

“‘T knew a man in Christ—whether in the body 
or out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth.” 

‘‘ Having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, 
which is far better.” 

‘‘ The spirits in prison — which some time were disobe- 
dient —in the days of Noah.” 

‘¢ And to the spirits of just men made perfect.” 

‘‘T saw under the altar the souls of them that were 
slain for the word of God.” ‘The souls of them ;’’ — 
this is a hard saying for the materialists. 

«Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord from hence- 
forth ; yea, saith the spirit, that they may rest from their 
labors, and their works do follow them.” 

Such passages leave nothing to be said, nor to be 
desired, in the way of proof, by those who receive the 
Bible as the Word of God. Allowing the Bible to be 
only the excellent production of uninspired men, we see 
in these passages the constant and natural assumption 
of the truth that the soul may be separated from the 
body, that it is not dependent upon it for its existence, 
and that it survives the body. As to difficulties and 


objections, Paul’s course of reasoning with regard to the 
4) ) § g 


346 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


difficulties attending the doctrine of the resurrection of 
the body, will apply here. It need not be quoted. 

But how does it follow from this that the soul is to 
exist forever ? 

However strong and conclusive we may deem the 
common argument in favor of immortality, drawn from 
the analogy of nature, from the desires of the soul, 
its dread of annihilation, and from the affections which 
God has implanted in us, —which would be a reckless 
waste if we were to perish, life with its toils and aspira- 
tions being a mockery if we exist only for a few years, 
we must acknowledge that it is only by the light of 
Revelation that we arrive at certainty on this subject. 
“T give unto them eternal life,’ says the Saviour, 
‘‘and they shall never perish.” ‘To them who by 
patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, honor, 
and immortality, eternal life.’ ‘For this corruptible 
must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on 
immortality.”” But to multiply such quotations were 
needless. 

The immortality of the soul may be said to have 
been, with scarcely an exception, the belief of every 
people on earth, though mixed in many cases with 
theories of transmigration. The knowledge of the 
one only living and true God, in some cases, perishes ; 
but the belief in existence after death remains. Soc- 
rates has been made by some to contradict this position. 
This las been ably answered. As to the opinion of 


Socrates himself, we read that, in his last hours, though 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 347 


doubts mingled with his hopes, he said, “I derive con- 
fidence from the hope that something of man remains 
after death.” “Is it not strange, after all that I have 
said to convince you that I am going to the society 
of the happy, that Crito still thinks this body, which 
will soon be a lifeless corpse, to be Socrates? Let 
him dispose of my body as he pleases, but let him not, 
at its interment, mourn over it as if it were Socrates.”’ 

Massillon puts the argument of existence after death 
in an interesting light; his words may be quoted here 
simply for this reason, and not because Scripture needs 
confirmation. He says, 

“Tf we have nothing to expect after this life, why 
are we not happy? Whence comes it that riches serve 
only to make man. uneasy, honors fatigue him, pleas- 
ures exhaust him, sciences confound his curiosity ; how 
is it that all these cannot fill the immensity of his 
heart, and that they still leave him something to wish 
for? All other beings are contented in their lot, ap- 
pear happy in the situation in which the Author of 
nature has placed them.’’ ‘The animals, insects, and 
birds, he says, are happy when their natural wants are 
supplied. ‘Man alone is uneasy and discontented, a 
prey to his desires; he allows himself to be torn by. 
fears, he finds his punishment in his hopes, and be- 
comes gloomy and unhappy in the midst even of his 


pleasures. Man alone can meet nothing here to fix 
his heart.” ? 


1Vol. I. 227. 


348 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


We come now to the question, What is the state 


of the soul after death, previous to the Resurrection ? 


Three theories have been proposed, and they now 
have their respective adherents. 

One theory is, The soul is insensible between death 
and the resurrection. 

Another is, The souls of men go neither to heaven 
nor to hell immediately after death, but remain happy 
or miserable, till the resurrection, im two departments 
of a region commonly called Hades. 

The third theory is expressed in the language of the 
Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism: “ The souls 
of believers are at their death made perfect in holiness 
and do immediately pass into glory, their bodies, being 
still united to Christ, do rest in their graves until the 
resurrection.” 

The first theory which we will consider, is that of 
Insensibility between death and the resurrection. 

This doctrine has been revived of late years, and it 
prevails to a considerable extent. It has found an adyo- 
cate in Archbishop Whately, of Dublin, in his work, 
“A View of the Scripture Revelations concerning a 
Future State.”’ He thinks, indeed, that the Scriptures 
have left the question undecided; but his own mind 
is strongly inclined to the theory of insensibility. It 
is a disagreeable necessity to examine this theory; for 
the reader, who is not already familiar with it, will 
shudder and be in distress till he has passed through 


this dismal region of silence. 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 549 


Dr. Whately says, “It is common to hear persons, 
when speaking of those of the departed of whose final 
salvation they are confident, speak of them as in 
heaven, as admitted to that blessed state in which they 
are to continue forever, as made partakers of the king- 
dom of heaven. And yet you are expressly told in 
Scripture that it is at the end of the world that Jesus 
will come to judge all men and pronounce their final 
doom, and that each will then have his just portion as- 
sioned him, whether of reward or punishment.” 

His principal arguments are as follows : 

‘ Death is commonly designated in the Bible by the 
terms sleep, and asleep.’ 

‘The Apostles comfort Christians by thoughts of 
the Resurrection, and not of their friends being in 
heaven.’ 

‘The warnings addressed to unbelievers refer to the 
last day, and not to the intermediate state.’ 

‘ Proofs of immortality are drawn from the resurrec- 
tion, not from the intermediate state.’ 

‘The day of judgment, and not the day of death, is 
declared to be the time when the condition of all men is 
to be unalterably fixed.’ 

His theory is that the first thing which we know 
after death is, that the judgment day has come, that 
it will be with the soul as in the case of a fainting fit, 
when we do not perceive that there is any interval 
between the accident and the restoration of conscious- 


ness. He speaks of a woman who fell imto a trance 
80 


350 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


state for several weeks, and revived asking for grapes, 
which had been brought in just before she became insen- 
sible. We are all familiar with cases of this description. 
Hence, he says, there is no long, dreary interval per- 
ceived by the soul, and of course no sense of weariness, 


nor of delay or loss of enjoyment. 


If one were disposed to combat the opinions of this 
writer, instead of wishing simply to know the truth, it 
might be easy to allege that the Archbishop’s position 
in Ireland, surrounded by Roman Catholic influences, 
made it easy for him to fall into this theory as a short 
method of disproving the doctrines of purgatory and the 
adoration of saints. 

While from our great respect for him we must be 
specially careful not to give undue weight to this expla- 
nation, we are, nevertheless, forced to receive his own 
candid admissions as to the desirableness of his theory 
in contending with Papal errors. For he tells us that 
if the Scriptures were clear on the subject of an inter- 
mediate state, a perfect knowledge that departed souls 
are conscious, would lead us to offer up prayers for the 
dead. This, however, he says, could not be the case if 
the Scriptures represented the separate state as unchange- 
able. If one says that such prayers are at least harm- 
less, Dr. Whately answers that they are not without 
a bad effect upon men while they live, who are en- 
couraged to sin with the expectation of being prayed 
for after death. Moreover, he says that we should be 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 351 


tempted to “pray to departed saints, who are with God, 
and who, we might not be able to disbelieve, must 
have power with God. Such things, he tells us, are the 
melancholy fruit of believing in a state of conscious- 
ness after death previously to the resurrection. Adopt 
the theory of unconsciousness, and it shuts out this 
error. 

In attempting a reply to these various considerations 
in favor of his theory, we may begin with the one just 
mentioned, and say, that to believe in the sleep of 
souls between death and the resurrection for the pur- 
pose of refuting the Popish doctrines of Purgatory and 
praying to saints, is paying too dear even for so 
conclusive an argument. On the same principle we 
might be asked to forego the Lord’s Supper, and to 
admit that it was intended only for the times of the 
Apostles; because we should by this means help to 
do away with the Romish abuses of this Sacrament. 
It is difficult to conceive how such a man as Archbishop 
Whately could bring himself to offer this supposed 
advantage as having the least weight with those who 
take the Scriptures for their infallible guide; because 
the same inducement could be offered in connection 
with every truth which has been perverted by the cun- 
ning craftiness of men. We will yield our faith in the 
immediate happiness of departed saints, if the Bible 
does not warrant this precious faith so generally em- 
braced; but we cannot turn to the right hand nor to 
the left from the instructions of the Word of God to 


352 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


save the souls of the whole Papal world, nor to confute 
their heresy. Had such concessions never been made, 
for similar purposes, there had been no Papacy. And 
if, in case of equilibrium in the argument, we must 
choose between a theory which, it is said, will refute 
the monstrous error of Purgatory, and, on the other 
hand, a theory which represents the souls of the pious 
dead as being still conscious, we are disposed to think 
that the cause of truth and, consequently, of human 
salvation, would lose most by the theory which eclipses 
heaven and the souls of all the pious dead to the eye 
of faith. We can hardly reason with composure against 
this theory ; we feel toward it very much as we might 
toward a serious proposition that the graves of all our 
dead should be given up to the colleges of surgeons. 
Such a proposition might proceed from distinguished 
sources, be maintained with learning, and be argued 
logically ; but in replying to it, learning and _ logic 
would yield to expressions of horror, and to the out- 
cries of natural affection. We are glad that Archbishop 
Whately feels constramed to admit that the Scriptures 
do by no means decide in favor of his theory. He can- 
didly says (and our hearts thank him for it as they 
do one who has forborne to rob us), that if the theory 
be true it is well that the Scriptures are no more 
explicit ; for many would be weary and discouraged 
by the thought that the pious dead are literally asleep. 
Though one moment and ten centuries are the same 


to them that sleep, yet people could not so regard it. 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. Son 


He says that the Scriptures leave the subject so far 
undecided that those whose feelings are biased either 
way may innocently adopt either theory.— We would 
none of us be behind him in charity, but we wonder 
at any men who with the New Testament in their 
hands, and even in the midst of Popery, can adopt such 
a belief. 

As to the well-known habit of the Apostles, in speak- 
ing of future blessedness, to dwell upon the resurrection 
and that which was to follow, more than upon the 
happiness of an intermediate state, we may see in this 
an illustration of their farsighted and comprehensive 
faith. Their happiness would not be complete till ‘ the 
adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body,” granting 
that, as they say, this refers only to the resurrection. 
The glories of that day and the bliss of having a com- 
pleted nature, body and soul, outshone the intervening 
blessedness of heaven; they believed in both, but they 
speak chiefly of the greater, and of the more distant 
consummation. This was their habit of mind. It is 
the effect of powerful faith. So with regard to the 
wicked, — the Apostles, for the same reason, dwell 
chiefly on the consummation of their woe at the end 
of the world. It should be borne in mind that in the 
Apostles’ day the thoughts of believers were full of the 
Resurrection. We, probably, do not fully consider how 
their minds were occupied with it. Christ had just 
risen from the dead and had become the first fruits 


of them that slept. Christianity and the hopes of its 
30 * 


354 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


friends were all suspended on the question whether 
Christ would rise from the dead. He rose, and such a 
triumph never was known, and never can be known 


’ therefore, became the 


in this world. ‘* Resurrection, 
engrossing theme, —the resurrection of Christ, and so 
the resurrection of his people. It is not strange, we 
maintain, that m writing and speaking about a future 
life, the souls of the Apostles should have leaped beyond 
the intermediate state, and should be found dwelling 
rapturously on the resurrection. It seemed deficient to 
tell believers that their departed friends were with Jesus, 
because the stronger and more exultant language was, — 
‘them that sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.” 
‘Who shall change our vile body that it may be fash- 
ioned like unto his glorious body.” Paul says of 
himself—that he counts “all things but loss —if by 
any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the 
dead.” But he needed to make no effort merely to 
rise from the dead ;—his meaning is that he strives to 
make good his interest in Christ so that he might have 
a completed glorified nature ;— not merely reach heaven, 
but have a body at last like Christ’s. So in warning 
the wicked, who rejected his Lord, it was natural to 
remind them not merely of their punishment, but of 
the certain coming of their injured Saviour whom 
Paul preached, — of his coming “ with his mighty angels 
in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know 
not God.” It is easy to see how intermediate things 


dwindled before a mind raised to such heights of expec- 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 350 


tation. So when Christ had ascended, the “two men 
in white apparel” spake of his coming again, not of his 
being in heaven. Was he not therefore in heaven? 
We may cheerfully admit, in view of what has now 
been said, that Paul and Peter dwell but little on the 
happiness of the intermediate state compared with their 
glowing anticipations of their Redeemer’s final triumph 
~ and of our “gathering together unto him.” 

This will help us to a reply when Archbishop W hately 
says that it is an argument for the resurrection, not for 
a separate state, which is based on the words to Moses 
at the bush,—‘‘I am the God of Abraham.” — But 
the argument of Christ seems to contemplate the opposite 
of annihilation, a future, or continued, state of existence, 
not merely the resurrection. Resurrection is made use 
of as the exponent, the impressive symbol, of a perpet- 
uated existence, which the death of the body seemingly 
interrupts; and therefore ‘resurrection’ is the appro- 
priate restorative, adding the link which had apparently 
been broken by death. The argument of Christ may 
be stated thus: Now that there is a state of existence here- 
after, even Moses showed at the bush when he called 
God the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. God 
would not have suffered himself to be called *“* the God” 
of those who had ceased forever to exist. — This group- 
ing of future life in all its stages, and using resurrection 
as its title, its appellative, is copied by the Apostles in 
grouping rewards and punishments, death, the last day, 


resurrection and final judgment, without drawing lines 


856 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


of distinction between them, and making “ resurrection ”’ 
to stand for the whole. 

An illustration of this, already mentioned, is given in 
the brief narrative of the Saviour’s ascension. ‘* Why 
stand ye gazing up into heaven?” said the ‘two men in 
white apparel ;’’--‘* this same Jesus which is taken up 
from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye 
have seen him go into heaven.” But why not dwell on 
the intermediate period of his exaltation and reign? why 
pass this by and speak of his second coming? And does 
this prove that Christ had no consciousness between his 
ascension and second coming? LEvidently, the second 
coming of Christ was seized upon as suited to strike 
the minds of the disciples more powerfully than the 
bare assurance that Christ still lived and reigned. That 
was implied by the assurance of his second coming, so 
that this, and resurrection, are like the first person singu- 
Jar among a group of nouns, governing the syntax. 

In depicting the terrors of a public execution, one 
would not be likely to dwell much upon the previous im- 
prisonment; though in itself it were sufficient to absorb 
the thoughts. It would be the great catastrophe, the 
irrevocable act of execution, which must seize and occupy 
his mind. Apply this to the punishment of the wicked. 

In offermg some further positive proofs from Scripture 
Gn addition to those cited to disprove materialism), show- 
ing that the soul after death is not asleep but conscious, 
we may appropriately begin with a case which we must 


allow is the strongest on the side of Dr. Whately, 


TIE INTERMEDIATE STATE. B57 


and seemingly favoring his argument drawn from the 
use of the terms sleep, and asleep, applied to death; but 
which we think will be found to be against his theory. 
Stephen said, ‘*Behold I see heaven opened, and the 
Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.” 
“And they stoned Stephen, calling [upon God] and 
saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And when he 
had said this, he fell asleep.” 

Here it is interesting to notice that Stephen sees Jesus 
“standing”? at the right hand of God, as though the 
Saviour’s intense interest in the dying martyr led Him to 
stand looking on, in an attitude of waiting to welcome 
Him to himself. But let us hasten to the close of the im- 
pressive scene. ‘* And having said this, he fell asleep,” 
that is, according to Archbishop Whately’s theory of 
‘¢ unconsciousness,” he fell into a slumber, yet undis- 
turbed, and continuing till the end of time! But what 
are the words of the narrative? ‘And having said this, 
he fell asleep.” What had he said? ‘ Lord Jesus, re- 
ceive my spirit.” We are not willing to believe that 


> nor that he was mis- 


Stephen meant ‘“ at the last day ;’ 
taken in his expectation that Christ was waiting to receive 
him that moment into glory. As to the use of the word 
“sleep ”’ here, it is a beautiful touch by the inspired pen. 
The shower of stones is descending upon the martyr, and 
yet his peaceful death is merely a falling asleep. 

The use of this term as applied to death, is sufficiently 
explained when we remember that the Bible describes ex- 


ternal things as they appear, not as they are. It is by 


358 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


this means that divine wisdom has made the Bible con- 
sistent, from age to age, with scientific disclosures. It 
does not conflict with the modern theory of astronomy, and 
for the reason that it uses the popular phraseology with 
regard to the rising and setting of the heavenly bodies. 
It does not conflict with geology, for similar reasons; and 
the close resemblance of the dead body to one asleep 
warrants the use of the term on the same principle. Dr. 
Campbell, in one of his well-known Dissertations, relieves 
this difficulty, and others with it, by showing that the term 
sleep, applied to the state of the dead, is found in all lan- 
guages, whatever be the popular belief as to the condition 
of the dead. ‘+The common doctrine of the Orientals,” 
he says, ‘favored the separate existence of the souls of 
the deceased.”” ‘* Christians have been the more ready to 
adopt such expressions, as their doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion presented to their minds an additional analogy be- 
tween the bodies of the deceased and the bodies of those 
asleep — that of being one day awakened.” 

The words of Christ to the penitent thief make the 
very general impression that ere the sun went down the 
soul of the thief would be in the conscious enjoyment of 
Paradise. To this Archbishop Whately replies, ‘ one 
day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand 
years as one day;’’ but this cannot mean that one day 
and a thousand years are identical ; that men regard them 
as such, or that God would promise a thing “this day” 
which was not to occur for a thousand years. The mean- 


ing we take to be, The lapse of time makes no difference 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 359 


with God as to his plans and actions. A thousand years 
do not make him forgetful ; the events of one day are not 
more easily comprehended than those of ages; his prom- 
ises and threatenings are sure, though delayed a thousand 
years. 

Perhaps those who believe that the soul is conscious 
after death, wonder that, in view of the account of the 
rich man and Lazarus, any one can believe the oppo- 
site. Archbishop Whately disposes of the testimony 
from that passage by saying that the only object is to 
show that the conditions of men, hereafter, are not neces- 
sarily parallel with their conditions here. All else in 
the passage, he says, is mere costume, and is not to be 
received as intentionally correct statement. 

This is a dangerous principle of interpretation. The 
assumption is easily disproved. (For, to resume the 
statement already made on this point, in no one para- 
ble of Christ is any thing introduced by way of ma- 
chinery or costume, which is at all fictitious. Let every 
parable be examined, and we shall be interested to find 
that this is literally so. Take the parable of the Good 
Samaritan for an example. Every thing there narrated 
has happened. So of the Prodigal Son, the wheat 
and tares, the net, the treasure hid in a field, the 
lost sheep, and the lost piece of money. Every 
thing in these parables happens continually. There is 
not one touch of fictitious illustration in the whole. 
We have no right to say that the parable of the rich 


man and Lazarus, allowing it to be a “parable,” is an 


360 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


exception. The importance of this will be recognized 
in its connection with the doctrine of retribution after 
death. The natural impression which the narrative 
makes upon the reader is, that the soul survives the 
death of the body, and does not sleep between death 
and the resurrection. 

The language of Paul respecting his own death seems 
utterly inconsistent with the idea of his death being a 
sleep. ‘‘ For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” 
Such a man never could have ‘preferred ages of un- 
consciousness and inactivity to laboring for Christ. W hat 
prospect did death hold out to him? Surely not that 
he was to sleep until the resurrection. ‘* Having a 
desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far 
better.”’. Will any one explain how death is a ‘ depart- 
ure to be with Christ,’ if the soul at death becomes 
unconscious ? — ** For we know that if this earthly house 
of our tabernacle were dissolved, we have a_ building 
of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the 
heavens.”” What is it to be *‘ unclothed,” and “ clothed 
upon,”’ if the soul be not separated from the body by death? 

One cannot help thinking what seeming: delusions 
have been practised on dying Christians in all ages of 
the world, and upon their surviving friends, if the antici- 
pations of the dying, that they would at once be with 
Christ, are not fulfilled. Open almost any Christian 
biography, and where do you find a dying saint antici- 
pating non-existence during the interval of death and 


the resurrection? Nowhere, but on the contrary — 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 361 


* ‘I'he world recedes, it disappears ; 
Heaven opens on my eyes; my ears 
With sounds seraphic ring. 

Lend, lend your wings, I mount, I fly, 
O grave! where is thy victory! 
O death! where is thy sting!” 


Here, for example, is a passage from David Brainerd’s 
last days—‘‘ Lord’s Day, September 27, 1747. I was 
born on a Sabbath day, and I have reason to think I was 
new born on a Sabbath day, and I hope I shall die on 
this Sabbath day.—I am almost in eternity; I long to 
be there. —I long to be in heaven, praising and glori- 
fying God with the holy angels.’”?— ‘* October 6th, he 
lay as if he were dying. He was. heard to utter, in 
broken whispers, such expressions as these: ‘He will 
come, he will not tarry; I shall soon be in glory. I 
shall soon glorify God with the angels.’” But Arch- 
bishop Whately thinks that for a hundred and _ thir- 
teen years Brainerd has been utterly unconscious, and 
that all these anticipations are not to be fulfilled for per- 
haps several thousand years. All such books as, The 
Memoirs of Dr. Payson, and the * Last Hours of the 


’ should be suppressed, if heaven does not re- 


Dying’ 
ceive the departing spirit. Yea, many of us are found 
false witnesses before God, if this be so. Alas! too, 


for our Christian Hymns: 


‘“‘ Give me the wings of faith to rise 
Within the veil, and see 
The saints above, how great their joys, 


How bright their glories be. 
31 


362 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


“ Take comfort, Christians, when your friends 
In Jesus fall asleep ; 
Their better being never dies; 


Then why dejected weep ?” 


“ Think, O ye who fondly languish 
O’er the graves of those you love, 
While your bosoms swell with anguish, 


They are warbling songs above. 


‘“‘ While our silent steps are straying 
Lonely through night’s deep’ning shade 
Glory’s brightest beams are playing 
Round the happy Christian’s head.” 


“Hark! they whisper! angels say 


‘ Sister spirit! come away !’” 
But no, Archbishop Whately would say, rather, Sister 
spirit, fall asleep! 

Not only are Christians, drawing near to death, often 
filled with glowing anticipations of heaven, but in health 
there are times when every child of God has such 
anticipations of the heavenly world, and such concep- 
tions of what it must be to dwell there, that death 
and the grave are disarmed of terror. All these things 
are in palpable contradiction of the theory of uncon- 
sciousness after death. But Dr. Whately says it will 
be the same as though we did awake in heaven, for 
the long sleep will be without any perception of delay 
and natural tediousness. We demur to this. We shall 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 363 


lose inconceivable good. We had hoped in heaven to 
behold the growing empire of our King on earth; to see 
Satan foiled; to share in the triumphs of the Gospel 
when China receives Christ as her king, and Japan 
comes into the family of Jesus, and India begins to 
shine the brightest jewel in his crown. But though 
life on earth may have been spent to promote these 
things, and all our desires were lost in this, ‘Thy king- 
dom come,’ it seems that we are to be put to sleep, like 
infants, while the household is to be alive with joy. 
Are we not the bride of Christ? But while our hus- 
band and lord is making preparations for the nuptials, 
we, it appears, are to be kept unconscious till every 
thing is ready for the ceremony. We feel a righteous 
indignation at all such intimations. They cheat us of 
the expectation created by Him who said, “And if 
I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again 
and receive you unto myself”? The dying day is “the 
day of Christ’ to a believer, as may be seen in several 
places in the Epistles. It is at death, we believe, that 
Christ comes to receive us to himself. Moreover, we 
think of death, to a Christian, as rest and peace; but 
Dr. Whately tells us that the next moment after we 
fall asleep, we shall hear the voice of the archangel: 
the dead will be rising, the Judge will be descending, 
the heavens will be departing, the earth will be on 
fire, all kindreds of the earth will be wailing at the 
sight of the Judge, and, apparently sooner than our 


bodies could be placed in their coffins, we shall put on 


364 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


new forms, and be among the splendors and ecstatic 
visions of the second coming of Christ. Is this in 
accordance with the representations of the Bible con- 
cerning the rest and peace of death? Where is Arch- 


bishop Whately’s “sleep,” if this be so? 


The inconsistency, or superfluousness, of two trials 
and adjudications of the dead, which Archbishop W hate- 
ly dwells upon so much as an argument against the in- 
termediate state, does not strike all as it appears to have 
affected him; yet it is a consideration which, apart from 
the subject in hand, is a perplexity in many minds. 

Is there not both a propriety and a seeming necessity 
for two adjudications, in the case of every soul? One 
is necessary at death, if the soul survives the body, in 
order that it may receive its award. But still its full 
account is not then made up, and cannot be till time 
shall be no longer. Voltaire and Paine will have a 
greater account to be settled at the last day than when 
they died; Paul will not be prepared for his full award 
till there are no longer any to read his epistles. So of 
every one who exerted any influence, as who does not? 
Moreover, the assignment of each soul at death to its 
place of happiness or woe, is a more private and per- 
sonal transaction; in the great day the character and 
doings of the Most High will be vindicated before all, 
in the history of each. Hence, so far from its being 
unnatural that there should be two judgment days for 


each soul, we think there is a propriety and, indeed, a 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 365 


necessity for them. Hence it does not constitute an ar- 
gument against the intermediate state. 

Have not the fallen angels already had that which is 
equivalent to a trial and condemnation? We cannot 
suppose that they were ‘thrust down to hell’ without 
something of the kind, or that they would be detained 
so long merely as prisoners waiting for their trial. They 
are convicts already, and yet they are ‘ reserved — unto 
the judgment of the great day.’ Their account, certainly, 
will not be ready for its full adjustment till the end of 
this world. 

But, to conclude this part of the subject, — We have 
no analogies to encourage a belief im this long sleep. 
The phenomena of sleep are all deficient, for this reason 
among others,—that the bodily organization of one 
asleep does not become decomposed. Could we see a 
body decay or change greatly, at night, and then revive 
in the morning with all the powers of the mind in full 
exercise as now is the case on waking from slumber, 
we should be presented with an analogy to Dr. Whately’s 
theory of unconsciousness in’ the grave. Because the 
mind recovers itself from sleep while here in the hody, 
one has no right to infer that it can remain unconscious 
for ages while the body is wholly decayed, and still 
return to consciousness. This argument is not against 
the possibility of the theory as an act of divine power, 
—for it is as possible as the resurrection of the dead. 
The point is this: It is illogical to argue that when the 


body has decayed in the grave, the soul can awake 
31 * 


366 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


from a sleep of ages, for the reason that the mind here 
awakes from sleep; for here the body survives. ‘The 
two things, therefore, are not parallel. 

Moreover, Where does the soul sleep, when the body 
js mixed with the dust of the earth? It is not in 
heaven; it is not in the grave, for it is not a material 
substance; and the body which cradled its slumbers in 
this world, is, perhaps, burned to ashes. This body, 
we know, will, by. the power of God, be raised; the 
soul can be re-created; but what intelligent conception 
has any one of its existence, when the body, which is 
essential in this world even to its being asleep, is no 
more ? Lodged, perhaps, it may be, in that mysterious 
germ of the new body which passes undestroyed through 
earth, and fire, and water; we do not deny it; we only 
say that our present power to sleep and awake affords 
no ground for an argument in favor of a thing which, in 
some of its conditions, is totally unlike that phenomenon. 

Thus far with regard to the theory that the soul 
sleeps between death and the resurrection. 

The reader must be willing to suffer awhile longer. 
He must now pass into the swamps which lie around 
purgatory, the dismal regions of ghosts, far this side 
of the heavenly Jerusalem ;—to which, however, in 
opposition to this next theory, Paul tells us,—not that 


we are coming, but, ‘‘ Ye are come.”’ 


THE Srconp Tueory, then, is, That souls at death 


go neither to heaven nor to hell immediately, but remain 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 367 


in a region called Haprs. We call this, for convenience, 
The Hades theory. 

The theory is, that there is, somewhere, a place which 
is divided into two regions, one for the righteous, the 
other for the wicked. It is called by some modern 


writers, a ‘* subterranean ”’ 


region. They say the upper 
part is occupied by the good, while the lower part is an 
abysmal place where the wicked are confined in misery. 
The upper region is called Paradise, the lower Tartarus. 
Wicked angels are said to be there, awaiting their final 
doom, and their eternal prison-house. At the resur- 
rection, the souls of the good will ascend where God 
has his seat, and the wicked will be removed to another 
place of punishment. 

Havers, from the Greek, a (with an aspirate) having 
the force of a negative,— and edo, to see,— hence, 
INVISIBILITY, is used eleven times in the New Testa- 
ment, and is translated hell in every place but one, 
where it is rendered by the word, grave. The old 
English, or Saxon word, Hell, means, a place obscured, 
covered, hidden. Dr. Doddridge refers to that meaning 
of the word as retained in his day ‘“‘in the eastern, and 
especially in the western counties of England,” where 
‘Sitompele over *a thing 1s," to'cover it?’ * He says, 
moreover, that the old meaning of the word exactly 
answers to the Greek word Hades, and denotes a ‘ con- 
cealed or unseen place.”? Dr. Campbell says, “ But 


though our word, hell, in its original signification, was 


1Fam. Expos., Rev. I. 18. b. 2 Tbid. 


368 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


more adapted to express the sense of Hades [covered, 
obscure] than of Gehenna [valley of Hinnom, a place 
of torment] it is not so now. When we speak as 
Christians, we always express by it the place of the 
punishment of the wicked after the general judgment, 
as opposed to heaven, the place of the reward of the 
righteous.” ! In a word, the meaning of Hades (trans- 
lated Hell in the New Testament, as Gehenna also is) 
means the state of separation from the body, irrespective 
of character. Jacob says, “I shall go down into Sheol 
[ Greek, Hades] unto my son mourning,” that is, I shall 
leave the world, or, go into the world of spirits, I shall 
end my days, mourning. 

The ablest expounder of this theory (of Hades as a 
place), perhaps, is Bishop Horsley. He builds his belief 
of it chiefly on 1 Peter iii, 19, “by which also he 
(Christ) went and preached to the spirits in prison.” 
This is the ‘ hell” (** Hades’’)) mentioned in the Apostles’ 
“ creed’? — ‘*he descended into hell.” Bishop Horsley is 
much concerned to explain how the souls of the righteous 
in Hades can be properly called “ spirits in prison ;”” — for 
it was to the good that he believes Christ went to preach 
during the interval of his death and resurrection. He 
says that the invisible mansion of departed spirits, though 
certainly not a place of confinement to the good, is, never- 
theless, in some respects, ‘¢a prison,” a place of seclusion, 
a place of unfinished happiness, of rest, of security, of 


hope, rather than of enjoyment. It would not have been 


1 Prelim. Diss. VI. part 2. 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 369 


necessary, were it not for sin. The deliverance of the 
righteous from this place and state is to be effected by 
Christ. A place of confinement like this, to the good, 
may well be called “‘a prison.”” He would translate the 
passage in Peter, ‘He went and preached to the spirits 
in safe-keeping.’ ‘* Now if Christ went and preached to 
the spirits in prison, he went to their prison, and what. is 
this but the ‘hell’ of the Apostles’ Creed? I have not 
met with the critic who could explain.” He gives to the 
Apostles’ Creed an authority which would control our 
interpretations; but it is by no means probable that the 
Apostles ever saw the creed which bears their name. 
No writer before the fifth century speaks of the Apostles 
as having met to form a creed. Luke certainly makes no 
record of such a meeting. Had it originated with the 
Apostles, it would have been the same in all times, not 
changed, as has been the case, by different early hands. 
The same writer gives the creed of the Church in differ- 
ent terms, which he would not do had there been one 
authentic Apostles’ Creed. . In its present form, it is, 
indeed, very ancient, being recorded by Ambrose in the 
third century. That it has no binding authority at the 
present day is seen from its caption in the Episcopal 
Prayer-Book: “*—— Any churches may omit the words, 
He descended into hell, or may instead of them use the 
words, He went into the place of departed spirits, which 
are considered as words of the same meaning in the 
ereed.”” We can make no objection to this, provided 


‘the place of departed spirits’? means, merely, a state of 


370 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


separation from the body ;— and this is obviously a proper 
meaning of Hades. But there are those who seem, with 
Bishop Horsley, to feel that Hades is a place. We have 
seen how Bishop Horsley labors painfully under his great 
mistake that ‘spirits in prison”? means, ‘‘ souls in safe- 
keeping,’’ who were the objects of a gracious visit in their 
‘‘ prison,” (not heaven), from their Redeemer within the 
thirty-six hours between his death and resurrection. 
Neither the Bible, nor the conceptions of Christian faith 
and hope, warrant the belief that an ante-chamber to 
heaven, or a provincial region away from the metropolis, 
detains the righteous dead, while heaven, and its angels, 
sit solitary, with, perhaps, the scanty satisfaction of pos- 
sessing two redeemed souls, Enoch and Elijah, who 
providentially leaped the “prison” of Bishop Horsley. 
Moses, when he appeared on Tabor, we take it, must - 
have gained a brief respite from that “ prison,” to accom- 
pany Elijah on his visit to the Saviour at his transfigura- 
tion, after which he must have returned, alas! and is yet 
in “prison.”’ We believe no such thing. This is not 
the faith of the Church,— we mean “the Church which 
is His body.” 

As an illustration of the way in which the simple, 
unsuspecting writers of the New Testament can be drawn 
to the support of almost any theory by quoting words 
from them apart from their connection, we may refer to 
these words in Acts: ‘* For David is not ascended into 
the heavens.” This is a great proof-text with Romish 


writers, and with the advocates of Hades as a place. 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 371 


They use it to show that righteous souls do not go imme- 
diately to heaven, but to an intermediate place. Hence 
they argue in favor of Purgatory. But the speaker’s 
object is merely to show that David, in the Psalms, is 
speaking of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, not 
of himself. ‘‘ Ascended into the heavens,” as the whole 
context shows, means, Exaltation, such as the words 
which follow the quotation describe: ‘ For David is 
not ascended into the heavens; but he saith himself, 
The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand 
until I make thy foes thy footstool.’ The word ascended 
is not the emphatic word; but David and his Lord are 
contrasted, and exaltation to the right hand of Grod, not 
the state of the body, or soul, is the subject in hand. 

_ As the passage in Peter makes the impression that 
the souls to whom they say Christ preached, were 
those of the wicked, Bishop Horsley would interpret 
the words, ‘‘ went and preached to those who were 
formerly disobedient, but were now recovered.” Another 
difficulty still more formidable lies in his path. ‘These 
souls, it is said, ‘‘ were sometime disobedient when once 
the long-suffermg of God waited in the days of Noah.” 
They were ante-diluvians, therefore, it would seem, to 
whom Christ preached; and are they not, many of 
them, victims of the deluge? “To this,” Bishop Hors- 
ley says, “the only answer that can be given is, that 
the Scriptures are manifestly anxious to speak so as 
to convey a distinct intimation that the ante-diluvian 


race. were not uninterested in redemption. Perhaps 


B12 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


the souls of those who died in the deluge have pecul- 
iar apprehensions of themselves as marked victims of 
divine vengeance, and might have peculiar need of 
consolation, which the preaching of our Lord in those 
subterranean regions afforded these prisoners of hope.” 

Here we perceive his belief in the doctrine of the 
final restoration of the wicked, of which he was an 
advocate. 

A writer on this subject in this country (the author 
of ** Lenten Fast’’), dislikes the interpretation, and says, 
“Might not Christ have proclaimed to those, who, hay- 
ing died in penitence, had been thus waiting and watch- 
ing for ages, that at length — He had finished the work 
of redemption, and was now going to plead as their 
Intercessor?”’! He advocates the Hades theory with 
much earnestness. ‘ The just,” he says, “do not at 
once enter into heaven, nor do the lost descend imme- 
diately to their eternal prison.” 2 

“Dr. Bloomfield, commenting on the words of Christ 
to the Penitent Thief, says, *‘He could not mean a 
paradise of sensual delights. Nor must we suppose that 
by Paradise is meant heaven. The term came to denote, 
among the later Jews, that pleasant abode in Hades 
appointed for the reception of the pious dead until they 
should, after the day of judgment, be again united to 
their bodies in a future state.” —It was “a secure and 
quiet retreat for the time which should intervene between 


death and the resurrection.’’ 


1“ Lenten Fast,” p. 198. 2 Ibid. p. 175. 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 373 


Dr. Dwight says,! ‘Several expressions, found in 
both Testaments, seem to intimate an intermediate place, 
as well as an intermediate state of existence, between 
this world and the final scenes of retribution.’ “I am 
obliged to confess myself not altogether satisfied. I 
have found difficulties on both sides.’”’ ‘* The soul of 
Christ was not left in Hades. The thief, therefore, 
went to the state which is denoted by this word, and 
not to that which is denoted by heaven, unless this 
word is supposed to include heaven.” We _ suppose 
that it does include heaven, and also hell. ‘* Para- 
dise’’ is heaven, as will be made to appear. The rich 
man was in Hades as truly as Lazarus, that is, both were 
in a state of separation from the body. Christ says, 
“Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades.” He evidently 
means, *“* Thou wilt not suffer me to remain a disem- 
bodied soul”; which is confirmed by what is said of 
his body in the next clause —that it would not remain 
long enough in the grave for decay to commence its 
work upon it. But ‘Dr. Dwight, and other good and 
able men, seem to be embarrassed with the idea so com- 
mon in the early times, that Hades must be a place. 
The word ‘“Jeave,”’ seems to favor the idea of being 
left behind in some place. A good argument could be 
made for a far different interpretation than any which 
has yet been generally received. The Greek word for 
leave, is used by Christ on the cross, according to Mat- 
thew and Mark, and it is there rendered ‘“ forsaken.” 


1 Theology, Sermon 144. 
32 


374 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


Hence, the passage in Acts, quoted from the Psalms 
might mean, When I am a separate spirit, thou wilt 
not forsake me; as though he said, ‘ Yea though I walk 
through the valley of the shadow of death,— thou art 
with me.’— But the meaning evidently is, Thou wilt 
not suffer me to remain long separate from the body, 
—referring, of course, to immediate resurrection. 

As the most convenient mode of considering and 
answering the arguments in favor of this theory, of 
Hades as a place, we will now attend to the more com- 
monly received doctrine of the Intermediate State. 

We come, therefore, to the THirp THrory, which 
is, The doctrine of the Westminster Assembly's Cate- 
chism. | 

“©. What benefits do believers receive from Christ 
at their death ?”’ 

‘© A. The souls of believers are at their death made 
perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory ; 
their bodies, being still pace to Christ, do rest in their 
graves until the resurrection.’ 

Some of the direct proofs for this fear will first be 
considered, and then the arguments of those who main- 
tain that there is an intermediate place for souls between 
death and their final abodes. Let it be borne in mind 
that we do not suppose the righteous or the wicked to 
be, respectively, as happy or as miserable as they will 
be after the resurrection. This we shall show hereafter. 

In proof of the entrance of righteous souls at once 


into heaven, we may mention the evident identity, in 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 3bO 


the account of Paul’s visit to the invisible world, between 
‘‘the third heaven’”’ and “ Paradise.”? ‘I knew a man 
in Christ — caught up to the third heaven.” “And I 
knew such an one caught up into Paradise.” Here, 
Paradise, and the third heaven, which all admit is the 
‘heaven of heavens,’ are identical. — To break the 
force of this argument, some say that Paul is speaking 
of two revelations, one referring to heaven, and the 
other to a lower place. But, that one vision, or trans- 
lation, is meant, is obvious from this, that we should 
have an inverted climax if two are intended: ‘I knew 
aman caught up to the third heaven, the very presence 
of God, yea, even to the place where the righteous are 
‘kept in seclusion.” ’ This is not admissible. — But if 
Paradise and “third heaven” are identical, the thief 
went with Christ to the heaven of heavens. 

Stephen’s vision, which we have already considered, 
was a vision of ‘* heaven opened,” ‘and the Son of man 
standing on the right hand of God.” The vision was, 
no doubt, as truly for the strengthening of believers as 
of Stephen. The impression made by the vision is, 
that the souls of martyrs go at once to the right hand 
of God, not that they depart into a ‘ place of seclusion.” 

“‘ Having a desire,”’ says Paul, “to depart and to be 
with Christ, which is far better.”’> Where is Christ ? 
We none of us doubt that he is in the heaven of heavens, 
and that this is his seat. If it be said that Christ could 
be with Paul in a place called Hades, we reply, Christ 


was with Paul in this world. He did not need * to 


376 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


depart,” in order to be, in this sense, with Christ. His 
words of ‘desire’ seem to intimate not merely that 
Christ would be with him, but that he should go where 
Christ resides, where He has his throne, ‘‘is set down,” 
‘Cat the right hand of the Majesty on high.” 

There is something incongruous in the thought of 
the Saviour’s soul departing from the scenes of cruci- 
fixion on a mission. Within the thirty-six hours which 
comprised the whole period between his death and res- 
urrection, we do not feel that such occupation could 
be agreeable to the condition and laws of his human 
mind. In the wilderness when the devil had finished 
his temptation, ‘behold, angels came and ministered 
unto him.’ When He was in Gethsemane ‘there ap- 
peared unto him an angel strengthening him.’ We 
cannot deny that on leaving his body on the cross 
his human soul may have received strength and vigor 
unknown before; hence we can make no assertion with 
regard to his probable employment after he gave up 
the ghost; but we are free to confess that when He 
said, ‘ Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,” 
we do not willingly think of that spirit as being sent 
away to “preach to the spirits in prison; we seem 
to require for Him peaceful and peace-giving ministra- 
tions ; we do not feel prepared to think of his soul as 
having at once assumed that giant strength, or that 
instant oblivion of the cross, that self+possession, or even 
that perfect calmness, which is implied in his going on 


such an errand; it does violence to our conceptions of 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 377 


Him to whose human soul the scenes within the veil 
would be as strange as they will be to any of us, “ his 
brethren.”’ . “ The state of seclusion,’’ and the * prison,” 
which Bishop Horsley is obliged to confess represent 
Hades, were not, to our view, most appropriate to the 
departing spirit which” had just commended itself to the 
Father’s hands. Hades as separate from heaven, ac- 
cording to Bishop Horsley and others, is not the abode 
of the Father; but we seem to require that the be- 
loved Son be taken instantly from amidst the pains of 
death to the home of his God, and when He said “It 
is finished,” we prefer to think that He was not disap- 
pointed by finding another labor awaiting Him, namely, 
to visit ‘‘ Hades”? and preach to ‘ spirits in prison.” 

Some of the writers already quoted, who resist the 
idea that the Saviour spent the interval between death 
and the resurrection elsewhere than in a place called 
Hades, argue that he did not go to heaven, from the 
fact that he told Mary Magdalene He had not ascended 
to his Father. — The exact words should here be borne 
in mind: ‘Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended 
to my Father.” h 

But we fail to make any good sense of the passage 
with this interpretation. ‘Touch me not,” said He, “for 
I am not yet ascended to my Father.’ Why is this a 
reason for not touching Him? It would rather seem to 
be a reason for allowing it, seeing that the sanctity of a 
glorified state had not yet supervened. The common 


interpretation is more natural: ‘Do not stay now for 
32 * 


378 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


these acts of love. I am not ascending at present to 
heaven; there will be time to meet with me again; go, 
tell my brethren that I am risen, and that I am to as- 
cend, no more a man of sorrows, but to reign.’ ‘Touch 
me not,’—the expression intimates earnestness, and 
the manner of one who is speeding another on an 
errand. The rapturous tidings of which Mary was 
to be the bearer must not be kept one instant from 
the brethren. 

We come now to the passage which is the source of 
all this error as to the alleged descent of Christ into a 
place called ‘Hades;’ and we maintain the common 
opinion of those who declare that the passage does not 
give the slightest countenance to the idea of Christ's 
personal preaching to the “spirits in ‘prison,’ at his 
death, nor at any other time. What reason there is 
for supposing that Christ performed this service just 
after his death, rather than at any other period, does not 
appear. Purgatory alone makes it important that it 
should have been at that time. But we have no belief 
that he ever did it, nor that there ever were any right- 
eous souls who needed it. 

John Howe furnishes us with the interpretation of 
this passage most commonly received by Protestants. 
The passage is this: ‘For Christ also hath once suf- 
fered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might 
bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but 
quickened in the spirit; by which also he went and 


preached unto the spirits in prison, when once the long 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 379 


suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the 
ark was a preparing.” 

Mr. Howe says, “* While Noah, that preacher of 
righteousness, was doing it externally, Christ was by 
his Spirit, inwardly, preaching to the generation who 
were now secure in the infernal prison; not while they 
were so, that is in prison, which the text says not, but 
in their former days of disobedience on earth.” ! 

There are few passages which contain so many ideas, 
crowded so closely together. Here it is difficult to see 
the chain of association which connects them. The 
following paraphrase may throw light upon the passage, 
with its context: 

I have been exhorting you to suffer for righteousness’ 
sake, if men persecute you, and not to be afraid of their 
terror, neither be troubled. But honor the Lord God, 
by keeping the fear of Him uppermost in your hearts, 
and be ready to explain and maintain the truth. To 
encourage you in suffering for the truth’s sake, and in 
meeting with great opposition, and with ill success,: I 
present you with these considerations: 1. ‘¢ Christ 


suffered for us,’ to “bring us to God;” 


be willing to 
suffer, that you may win others. 2. Christ was, indeed, 
“put to death”? by wicked men; but did not the Holy 
Spirit raise Him to life, and endue Him afresh with 
power? Be not afraid, then, even to die for the truth. 
3. Christ will be with you when you plead with men. 


Remember Noah. While he preached, Christ by his 
1 Living Temple, II. 10. 


380 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


spirit helped him. He will help you. 4. Think of 
those lost souls to whom Noah thus preached, now in 
prison. Have compassion; be not afraid of the wicked ; 
understand their end. 5. Few and feeble as you are, 
God will save you. He remembered Noah and saved 
him and seven others only, in that universal deluge. 
He remembers and saves his people, even if they be 
but few. 6. Your Christian profession, if sincere, will 
save you as really as the ark saved Noah. To be bap- 
tized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
is, to one who lives conformably to that glorious cove- | 
nant, an ark of salvation. JI do not mean that the rite 
will save you; yet the rite, with all its conditions ful- 
filled, is as truly an exponent of salvation, as the ark was 
of deliverance to Noah and his house. 7. This salva- 
tion is sure. Christ is risen, nay, ‘gone into heaven, 
at the right. hand of God, angels, authorities and powers 
being made subject unto him.’ 

If there be any thing utterly foreign from this whole 
passage, and from the writer’s mind, we are disposed 
to think it was, a place, * Hades,’ and the Saviour’s 
visit to any such place. 

But where do Bishop Horsley and others place 
‘‘ Hades?” They speak of it as a “subterranean 
region,” a place “under the earth.” The. expression 
‘‘under the earth’? was well enough in the days of 
the Ptolemaic System of Astronomy. The Bible falls 
in with the popular mode of speaking; but we ask 


those who would render its astronomical and geological 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 381 


phrases literally, as the believers in the place Hades 
must necessarily do, what is meant by the expression, 
under the earth, in connection with a planet which turns 
wholly round upon its axis every twenty-four hours ? 
We maintain, therefore, that the idea of the Saviour’s 
going to a place called Hades, and preaching to the 
souls of the dead, has no countenance from this passage, 


> mentioned here, are the 


but that the “spirits in prison,’ 
souls of the wicked who perished in the flood, to whom 
Christ through the Spirit preached by Noah; and that 
they, and their faithful minister of righteousness, and 
the divine aid afforded him, and his safety and deliv- 
erance in the flood, and the sure destruction of the 
ungodly, are used to encourage Christians now to be 
faithful and zealous, and to maintain their Christian 
profession ;—all which if they do, their salvation is as 
sure as was that of Noah, while the destruction of their 
wicked opposers is as certain as that of sinners in Noah’s 
time who are now in the prison of hell. 

But now, What is the true meaning of Hades in the 
Bible? Is it a place, or merely a state ? 

We find no evidence of its being a place. Its mean- 
ing, we have already shown, is, invisibility, the unseen 
state. — But are not men said in the Bible to go to 
Hades? Yes, and in the same sense that they are 
now said to go into obscurity, or matrimony, or insol- 
vency. Suppose, now, that one should speak of dnsol- 
vency as a place, having two compartments, one for 


honest debtors, and the other for the dishonest ? — or 


382 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


represent obscurity, or notoriety, as a place, with upper 
and lower regions ;—he would do very much the same 
as those who speak of Hades as a place. It was the 
universal practice of the Jews, and of other nations, to 
speak of the dead as having gone into the unseen state, 
just as we, without distinguishing between good and 
bad, speak of the dying as going into the world of spirits, 
the separate state, the land of silence, the region of the 
dead. Such is “Hades.” It is the invisible state. 
God is there; Christ is there; all souls are there; it 
is invisibility to us the living. The Oriental mind 
pictured this invisible state as a local habitation ; it is 
generally spoken of as such; but we are constantly 
in the habit of doing the same thing. In our phrase- 
ology, we place the body and the soul together in the 
grave. We speak of a friend as ‘sleeping in Mount 
Auburn Cemetery.” Mrs. Hemans, in her ‘Graves of 


a Household,’ says: 


“The sea, the blue, lone sea, hath one; 


He lies where pearls lie deep.” — 


We are led, therefore, by our views of the Scripture 
in its direct and indirect allusions to this subject, to the 
belief that, at death, the souls of the righteous enter 
heaven, and the souls of the wicked depart to their final 
abode. But neither are we to suppose that the right- 
eous are in the complete possession of all the means of 
happiness, nor that the wicked receive the full measure 


of their punishment, till the resurrection and last judg- 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 383 


ment. The glorified body will, of course, add to the 
means of enjoyment in the spiritual world, that body 
being like that of Christ, connecting the soul more 
immediately and intimately with the material universe, 
and bestowing upon it a consciousness of redoubled excel- 
lence in the scale of creation. Moreover, to those who 
followed their Lord and Master here, the final results 
of their good influence will be to their praise, and honor, 
and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ. As to 
the wicked (for “there shall be a resurrection both 
of the just and of the unjust”), the addition of the body 
which was the instrument of sin, will be an instrument 
of retribution ; “that every one may receive the things 
done in his body, according to that he hath done, 
whether it be good or bad.” President Edwards says, 
— ‘Union with a body is the most rational state of 
perfection of the human soul. — This was the condition 
in which the human soul was created at first ; — its 
separation from the body was an alteration brought on 
by sin;— whence we must conclude that the former 
state of union to the body was a better state than disu- 
nion, which was threatened. It introduced that death 
that consists in the separation of body and soul. The 
state of innocency was embodied, the state of guilt was 
disembodied.” 1 Hence the Apostle does not regard 
our condition as complete till after the resurrection. 
‘¢ We ourselves,” he says, “which have the first fruits 


of the spirit, — groan within ourselves, -waiting for 


1 Vol. VII. p. 240. 


384 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


the adoption, —to wit, the redemption of our body. 
‘© Which,” says John Howe, “ though “it ultimately 
refer to the resurrection, may be allowed to have an 
incomplete meaning in reference to death too, for I see 
not but, ‘redemption of our body,’ may admit such a con- 
struction as redemption of the transgressions, Heb. ix. 15; 
that is, that ‘redemption of the body’ may mean redemp- 
tion from it, wherein it is burdensome, a grievance and 
penalty, here, as well as there.— Our blessedness is not 
perfect till mortality be swallowed up of life.” } 

The thought of heaven as now destitute of redeemed 
souls, except Enoch and Elijah, is not in accordance 
with our general Christian faith and hope; it does vio- 
lence to the ordinary conceptions which good people 
have respecting departed Christian friends; it falsifies 
their use of the word “heaven” in connection with 
them. The wonder is, if the place Hades theory be 
true, that we have not learned to speak of our dying 
Christian friends as ‘‘ going to Hades,” nay as going to 
“hell;’’ for according to “the Apostles’ Creed,” Christ 
‘descended into hell,’ and (as Bishop Horsley and 
others say), to carry good news to the pious dead. 
The Christian use of the word heaven, rather than any 
substitute, in connection with departed saints, points to 
the deep-seated belief which the Bible has wrought in 
the hearts of men that “the souls of believers are at 


their death made perfect in holiness and do immediately 


* Sermon: ‘“ Desire of being absent from the body, and present 
with the Lord.” I. 1028. 


THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 385 


pass into glory.” With the respect which is due to 
distinguished names in the Christian church, let us be 
grateful if we find ourselves free from those views of 
Scripture which indicate the lingering influence of Ro- 
man Catholic superstition, to which we perceive good 
men are subject who nevertheless abjure all affinity 
with Rome. True, our sympathies, and our longings, 
with reference to a future state, are not our guide; but 
we repose in the full assurance that the Bible, inter- 
preted on principles untainted by Romish inventions, 
establishes the belief, in which we are joined by a 
goodly fellowship in the Episcopal communion (from 
some of whose excellent men, and from others in our 
own denomination, we are obliged to differ on this 
subject), that the thanksgiving in the burial service of 
the Episcopal Church is, with some exceptions, the se- 
cret voice of all souls who take the word of God for 
their infallible guide. Therefore, in the language of 
that act of adoration, as a sign of love and concord, in 
the prospect of heaven, nearer every day, and in com- 
munion with our pious dead, we will join in thanks- 
giving to “ AtmigHTy GoD, WITH WHOM DO LIVE THE 
SPIRITS OF THOSE WHO DEPART HENCE IN THE LorpD, 
AND WITH WHOM THE SOULS OF THE FAITHFUL, AFTER 
THEY ARE DELIVERED FROM THE BURDEN OF THE FLESH, 
ARE IN JOY AND FELICITY.” 
33 






AR HES: 2 sy tye i: Peel ate deyyuatay ‘fihex, “Aallt aT 


q+ aay 72 "4 : rey sh jig shah Reale aban ap. ‘ec 7 


‘ee fe oe By att ie He tee 


ai We coy she wk pele nest He wept 


aay Baan t (het 8) ees Ai Re 





i annie ral seta oe 
i bre ‘awe patentee get soit ee ae 
ep a die ‘scioladlei Siete 
cabs? dneeagetit Neditannsseinn: 
Tvornye sabia beige dua ane tie se | 
aiiitte Hig ‘pated witha rareie: oie: ane el 
ee urvegetieln A Hasna avait aeidlee ‘ii. nS ea 
twat: § Sk dey or i Yeah Se atte Ogee: we 














RGR A RE el Re bes 


she ashe BSA ek se Hier hited “at 


dn Pa f "4 nk aie 

Die £82 ni ai, RAN Heh 5. (8 oe 
gat § OP ae ee 

; ; rantent. Oey é seh SPEEA SE ‘fetll 
' ‘a * ‘ 

. . ? . 4 * 4 4, 

nv Peep Reet. Bee Vist 
et aa i : bed f <n Pe eo 

“yp (Meg ER Ts. (pee sine ae Aeverseere tages 


i epesy! =<) i. eT vee “pce ro Oe r aie y : {a 
Co Rm et 
ote bee” | ab Sea Rea gsc Ray 


Aare i See Oh Gert? “Te. ive areal 


« 
. 


It fi Tite, Oz ae at! ED “ths re See noe 
; ay 5 
. hae aN on “appoint ties” Fa 


a ihc ‘ tos 
Z é vibe? 2 ae ee Nom apt rl 
i % ota ae 
d . 4 y ¥ ‘ mae af 
ae ie ‘4 
t 4 
‘ .< 7 4 
‘ ’ +» ef-s oe 
. 
i 
- ‘ ‘ a 
' 
’ 
a w/ 


AV ET. 


RETRIBUTION. 







Wee Se ae » 
7, , SS bd : 4@ mand - 
3 Ter. ros oe 7 
: “i 2 a Ve Sean, One. 
» ‘ > ay ra “a ; : 
hi ; 
‘te } 
; nt we A) Veer A. ven | ca 
‘ 
e 7 ot. 4 . 
aw Py 4) 
Pe ae 
ae 
.. 4, 4 r 
‘a ; He ee 
i | 
4 VAP Aan 
‘ ie , * 3 f fs te 
ei 
| Shins 
: Ait 
’ ‘a-% 5 
; R 
4 
Way Ay r : P 
eu . ; o 
=} ‘ ; ie a Fix . 
hi ( #! Moye’ inal $5 ‘ wate ny : 
| ees 
: . ‘ 7 oa TAT, i tig haa 
F 
h 
4, 
a) ! # Sia ley ra) ” 7 a gta oe 
: 2 j fe dae aig* J 
La pide ys ed 4 
t rs ; > 
a veh pen iaal 
d yrs +. ‘ J ’ - : 
* ; at ih “4¢ val eter 
ver. p #4 b ‘ 7 
a ) A ov ‘] LAL lin oa mre y oft 
— . . , » rt : 
if py i <4 4 - | é i i ae as tah &. Chel 
rN Us Se . NK: SCT a we 
rh ea 
4, Poh eee a Sead ei, ibe 


~ 
if f 
vee 
+ =) ae 
i ' 


” ui = a sdliniolengede 






t 


ta be ver ry ie mia er | as ‘ & 


ea pe 


*’ ‘oe 
i a *%) ¥ 
>. - 
i »* - f 
¢@ ’ é 
’ . 2 Ore 
‘ wed ~ 4 — 
¢ o; i ire en eS 
: . 5e Pat 7 rn 
d hs Ot eee as a 
DS eee a ae SS Ae ef 


XVII. 


RETRIBUTION. 


HE doctrine of Endless Retribution, if stated in the 
identical language of Christ and the Apostles, is 
liable to no greater objections than we would all proba- 
bly have made against the present constitution of things, 
had it been submitted beforehand for our approval. 
Ages of woe by reason of crimes, death in its unnum- 
bered forms, successive generations of evil doers unre- 
claimed by the history of their predecessors, the appalling 
number of divine judgments with which it would be 
needful to punish sinners, the history of wars, famines, 
pestilences, of public and private mourning, and the 
sum total of sorrow in all its forms, under the govern- 
ment of One who could prevent it if He chose, and who 
would, one day, cause it to cease, not because the sys- 
tem had worn itself out, but because it will have accom- 
plished his purposes, constitute a dispensation such as we 
would all have declared beforehand a benevolent God 
would never permit. But we might be told that, how- 
ever long and fearful this reign of terror, the result 


would justify all that suffermg. We should still doubt 
33 * 


390 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


the benevolence, or the wisdom, or the power of God, 
who could not, or would not, accomplish his purposes 
except by the groans and blood of his children. ‘There 
is nothing in the endless punishment of a portion of the 
race more truly liable to objection. than such a system 
would be to a benevolent being, who should have been 
consulted with regard to its antecedent probability. 

Nor can we find in our hearts any objections to the 
endless punishment of the wicked as inconsistent with 
the paternal character of God, which might not lie 
against the treatment which our first parents received 
from God upon their first transgression. ‘This has been 
suggested already, under another doctrine. But let us 
again suppose that children have flagrantly disobeyed a 
father, that the father pronounces his curse upon them ; 
that he turns them out of the dwelling which they had 
received from him at their marriage; armed guards are 
stationed to prevent their return; he follows them with 
his curse, imposing hard labor upon them, causing the 
very soil which they till to be a plague to them, visiting 
them with sickness, greatly multiplying their sorrows in 
the birth of their offspring, and finally causing them 
to die. And all this for their first offence! He does 
not give them a second trial; they sinned but once; 
they had before been perfect in their obedience, but for 
one transgression they are visited with inexorable dis- 
pleasure. ‘But it is for their ultimate happiness; and 
the welfare of the majority of those who are to descend 


from them will be promoted by it.’ The apology would 


ni at 


RETRIBUTION. 39] 


not be regarded. The ‘paternal character’ of such a 
man would be a by-word. 

Worse things, if possible, have been spoken and writ- 
ten against the atonement by Christ, than against the 
doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked. The 
thought that those who may be punished forever might 
have chosen a different course, allays the natural feel- 
ings of some who would otherwise persistently oppose 
the doctrine. But for a God of infinite love to put his 
own Son to death on the cross before He can forgive 
sin, presents the Most High before the minds of some 
in a light so revolting, that no pictures of future woe 
inflicted by Him on transgressors can go beyond it. 

When men come to feel the guilt of sm as committed 
by themselves against such a Being as God, and then 
receive his testimony respecting the appointed way of 
pardon, we find them as enthusiastic in their love and 
praise as before they were bitter in their denunciations. 
With an increase of spiritual knowledge, darkness is 
turned to light, the crooked is made straight, and the 
rough places in the divine administration become plain. 
So when we look at the apostasy, and the history of sin 
in our world, in connection with the history of redemp- 
tion, we are very far from impugning the wisdom or 
the benevolence of God. Hence, let it be declared 
that God will punish the wicked forever, inflicting 
upon them all which the terrible language of the 
Bible, literally interpreted, conveys, and it will come 


to pass that when we know more of God, and of the 


392 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


interests of the divine government, we shall have feel- 
ings not unlike those which are excited when, in view 
of the cross of Christ and the history of sin and redemp- 
tion thus far, we cry, ‘*O the depth of the riches both of 
the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable 
are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” 

Using the arguments commonly employed to disprove 
the doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked, 
I propose to show that the men of Noah’s time could, 
with equal conclusiveness, have proved that there would 
be no deluge. Indeed, it can, in the same way and 
with equal conclusiveness be shown, that there was no 
such deluge. 

We will, first of all, quote the language by which it 
was attempted to show that there would be a deluge. 
The following will suffice for this purpose. Though 
familiar to the reader, it may be well for him to note 
some of the strong expressions in these verses: 

‘¢ And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is 
come before me,—and behold I will destroy them with 
the earth. — Make thee an ark. And behold I, even I, 
do bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy 
all flesh wherein is the breath of life from under heaven, 
and every thing that is on the earth shall die. But 
with thee will I establish my covenant, and thou shalt 
come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, 
and thy sons’ wives with thee.” 

“And the flood was forty days upon the earth ;— 


and the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, 


RETRIBUTION. 393 


and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven 
were covered.— And all flesh died that moved upon 
the earth,— and all in whose nostrils was the breath 
of life, of all that was in the dry land died. — And 
every living substance was destroyed which was upon 
the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the 
creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they 
were destroyed from the earth; and Noah only re- 
mained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” 

The following passages, among others, are thought to 
be confirmatory of the foregoing : 

‘For as in the days that were before the flood, they 
were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in mar- 
riage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 
and knew not till the flood came and took them all 
away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” 

‘¢___'The spirits in prison, which some time were disobe- 
dient when once the long suffering of God waited in 
the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein 
few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” “ For 
this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of 
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing 
out of the water and in the water: whereby the world 
that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” 

We may surely apply to these passages the words 
of John Foster, when he had quoted the terrific lan- 
guage of the New Testament respecting endless pun- 
ishment: ‘It must be admitted that these passages are 


formidably strong; so strong that it must be an argu- 


& 


394 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


ment of extreme cogency that would authorize a lim- 
ited interpretation.” 

But if the common arguments against endless pun- 
ishment have any weight, it will be easy to raise ob- 
jections to the common belief that there was a deluge 
such as these passages, literally interpreted, seem to 
describe. We admit their authenticity, but they are 
capable, we will assume, of a different interpretation. 

For, we might say, First, The paternal character of 
God makes it impossible that he should destroy the 
whole human family (except eight) by a deluge. 

Think of pictures in the windows of the shops, and 
on the walls of parlors, representing a father destroy- 
ing his whole large family except a small remnant. 
People would not endure the sight. 

Consider what the population of the earth must 
have been in those days. We can form some esti- 
mate with regard to it when we recollect that the 
‘population of the United States in 1850, two hundred 
and thirty years after the landing at Plymouth, was 
twenty-three millions. Leaving out of view the increase 
here by immigration, we see that, i sixteen hundred 
years from Adam to Noah, and taking into view the 
great length of life in those days, the population must 
have been exceedingly great. If the increase were 
only the same as that of the Israelites in Egypt, six 
hundred thousand footmen, besides women and children, 
in four hundred years, from seventy souls, or if it were 


such as the multiplication of the Israelites must have 


RETRIBUTION. 395 


been in the wilderness and in Canaan, judging from © 
the number of their warriors, the habitable parts of 
the earth must have been filled with people in Noah’s 
day. 

But of this vast family “a few,” that is, eight souls 
only, are said to have been saved. 

We may allude to the indiscriminateness of the de- 
struction, no allowance being made for shades of character 
and degrees of guilt. The youth and the hoary trans- 
gressor die side by side. No imagination can picture 
such a catastrophe. Yet it is said God was the author 
of this destruction. He not only looked on, but He © 
himself did it. Is He a Father? 

Secondly, It might be alleged, The disproportionateness 
of the sin to the punishment is an argument against 
the flood. 

A youth, and even a child (not to speak of the in- 
fants), who might have lived to the age of Methuselah, 
is, for sins committed in his most thoughtless moments, 
deprived of his eight or nine hundred years of life on 
earth. Where is the justice of this? John Foster says 
that if we could divide infinite duration by the number | 
of sins committed by one individual, it would give mil- 
lions of ages for each sin. We have an amount of 
punishment in the loss of life and happiness by the flood 
for each sin committed in childhood, which is as really 
disproportioned, if one chooses to think so, as are the 
punishments of eternity. If you say the suffering in one 


case is infinite, and in the other finite, the reply is, 


396 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


excessive damages need not be infinite to create a revul- 
sion of feeling in favor of the defendant, nor to consti- 
tute injustice. 

Thirdly, We might argue, Fair warning could not 
justify the infliction. 

It is said that the ante-diluvians had full notice of 
their approaching destruction.—But some may reply, ‘if 
the threatening was contrary to common sense, they 
could not believe, and they were not to blame. The 
only effect of Noah’s preaching was to harden the heart, 
in the same way that the obnoxious doctrines of evan- 
gelical religion are now said to make men infidels. Noah 
convinced only his" own house, and them, probably, 
through his influence as a father, or by the partiality of 
God, who withheld saving grace from all but them. 
Even the carpenters employed upon the ark were not 
convinced ;——a solemn warning to all who preach terror. 
Men cannot be frightened into religion. Love is the 
only appeal which can be successfully addressed to the 
human heart.’ 

Fourthly, It could be urged, The goodness of God 
experienced by the people of Noah’s time confuted the 
idea of a flood. Seasons and fruits, the early and the 
latter rain, spoke of the Maker’s goodness. The bow 
in the cloud, it is argued, must, by the laws of light, 
have existed as soon as there were falling drops of 
water, and therefore that it was seen from the begin- 
ning — not created as a sign, but adopted, for the purpose. 


So that this meteor, born of water, must have made all 


RETRIBUTION. 397 


men feel that the God who painted that beautiful object 
upon water, and most commonly upon the receding 
storm, never could use the element of water to destroy 
all the human family but eight. As birds and flowers 
are now a conclusive argument with some against endless 
retributions, the bow in the cloud was no doubt a 
demonstration that God would not destroy birds, and 
beasts, and men, with a cruel, vindictive infliction. 
Noah must have seemed a most melancholy, pitiable 
character. The paternal character of God must have 
perished from his thoughts. Surely he could not say, 
much less teach mankind to say, ‘Our Father which art 
in heaven.’ — But it could also be said here, as it has 
been said with respect to future retribution, — 

Fifthly, Noah himself could not have believed his own 
doctrine, or he would have been insane. 

John Foster tells us that the professed believers in 
endless punishment do not and cannot really believe it. 
If they did, he says they would be continually uttering 
cries of entreaty in the ears of men; they would not 
eat nor sleep, by reason of their solicitude for their fellow 
creatures, and many would lose their reason on account 
obetit. 

Now as Noah did not become a maniac under the in- 
fluence of the impending judgment which he preached, 
he could not have believed it. If belief of future retri- 
butions in another world must make believers in them 
beside themselves, much more the sure coming of a 
deluge with all its visible horrors, must, if fully antici- 

34 


398 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


pated by Noah, have rendered him utterly incapable of 
long-continued intelligent acts. It is said that he 
preached for a hundred and twenty years upon this 
subject, and without success. His failure from year to 
year to win souls from destruction, must have destroyed 
the balance of his mind, and therefore the narration is 
inadmissible. 

Sixthly, The doctrine of the deluge could easily have 
been shown to be inconsistent with other divine teach- 
ings. 

God had mercy even upon our first parents, treated 
them with clemency in some things, and promised them 
a Redeemer. Witness, too, his treatment of Cain. He 
shelters the murderer of a brother against the instinc- 
tive desire of men for retributive justice. LLamech, the 
manslayer, takes courage from this, and tells his wives 
that if God showed this sevenfold goodness to Cain, 
Lamech should experience it seventy and seven fold. 
The ante-diluvians might have said, We are surely no 
worse than Cain. 

Seventhly, The plain declarations of God concerning 
the deluge are easily explained, on the Universalist 
principles of interpretation, to signify exactly the oppo- 
site of that which is commonly held to be their mean- 
ing. 

It may be said, Look below the surface of language. 
Make great allowance for Oriental exaggeration. Do 
we suppose that a whole system of theology was intended 


to be conveyed by the first seven chapters of Genesis ? 


RETRIBUTION. 399 


Are they not “ word-pictures?” Is not the whole nar- 
rative a mere ‘pictorial epic,’ to convey some moral 
truth by flaming colors? ‘Take the words literally, and, 
of course, they prove the deluge. But let us examine 
them philosophically. Doing this, it is easy to show 
that the deluge means, A great moral reformation in 
the time of Noah. 

All men, it seems, were to “die.” ‘And all flesh 
died.” Yes, They “died unto sin and lived unto right- 
eousness.”” Paul says, ‘‘Sin revived, and I died.”’ He 
means that he gave up his self-righteousness and became 
a Christian. Thus, all sin died, for a time; “all flesh 
died;”’ flesh means sin; ‘that which is born of the 
flesh is flesh,” 1. e. sinful. ‘If ye live after the flesh, ye 
shall die.’ This cannot be gainsayed. Now the flood 
was undoubtedly a flood of tears, godly sorrow, a uni- 
versal weeping on account of sin. This was produced 
by the sight of God’s goodness in providing the ark. 
For what is the meaning of “ark” ? Read in Moses ; 
an ark, there, is a depository of sacred emblems. Noah’s 
ark was a chapel, a sanctuary for him and his family ; 
and connected with it was a place for the representa- 
tions of the innocent animal creation, a menagerie, by 
means of which, in that sacred place, God would teach 
man his wisdom and benevolence. This touching act 
of divine goodness in showing his regard for virtue 
by bestowing favor on Noah and his house, and by 
calling on men to look upon the creatures which God 


had made, had an immediate effect upon man. A 


400 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


flood of tears was the consequence. ‘ The highest 
mountains were covered,” that is, mountains of trans- 
gression; for our sins are said to reach up to heaven. 
Thus, in the bold, oriental style, there was a deluge 
of repentance, flooding the great wickedness of men. 
But ‘every thing in whose nostrils was the breath of 
life, died.” That is, The animals experienced a great 
change in their dispositions, in sympathy with the change 
in man, who would now treat the brute creatures with 
kindness, and so win their love. As to the rest of the 


> and the “ olive-leaf,” are they 


story about the “ dove,’ 
any thing more than “scenic pictures,” to finish out the 
tale? We find similar things in the “ Arabian Nights,” 


the Koran, Ossian, Hafiz, and in Origen. 


If one should think that these arguments are carica- 
tures, let him peruse the following piece of biblical 
interpretation, written and published not long since, by a 
clerical editor, under his own name: 

“‘ Judas uttered the strongest dying testimony of the 
purity of Jesus, and gave practical proof -of the sincerity 
of his repentance, by throwing down the price of his 
perfidy at the feet of his seducers; and either they or 
he purchased with it a field, in the midst of which he 
‘fell asunder and all his bowels gushed out’— or, his 
heart broke, as the word bowels is sometimes used in 
Scripture. With this agrees a fair rendering of Mat- 
thew xxvii: 5, reading, instead of ‘ hanged himself,’ 


choked with anguish—both implying the death of Judas 


RETRIBUTION. 401 


by internal rupture from excessive anguish on account 
of his sin. His repentance was as real as that of the 
thief on the cross. —‘ Good were it for that man if he 
had not been born’? —i. e. living to manhood would 
hardly be desirable.” 

Had Judas been the subject of this lecture instead 
of the deluge, and its interpretations had been used to 
illustrate the testimony of Scripture concerning Judas, 
they would have struck the reader as an attempt at 
caricaturing the opinions and arguments of others. 

That the Bible makes the impression on the world 
at large that the punishment of the wicked after death 
will be endless, is manifest from this, that, notwithstand- 
Ing it is repulsive to the natural feelings, and that, in 
cases of bereavement, there is the strongest possible 
inducement to interpret the Bible favorably to their 
wishes, the great majority of the devout everywhere 
accept the doctrine; they preach it, they hear it, they 
admit that the Bible teaches it, while every private feel- 
ing and motive would incline them to believe otherwise. 
They have no unworthy reasons for believing it; they 
are not credulous, superstitious, priest-ridden ; they are 
biblical scholars; they are men in whom the community 
confide, they are kind, benevolent, gentle ; they are as jeal- 
ous for the character of God as others, and as able to 
appreciate the reflections which some think the doctrine 
seems to cast upon his goodness. But they have adopted 
the principle of implicit faith in the teachings of the 


Bible when fairly interpreted. They reject the prin- 
34 * 


402 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


ciple that we are to believe no further than we can 
understand, or that our moral sentiments and our 
instincts are the supreme test of truth. 

The belief that the Bible teaches this doctrine has 
received valuable aid of late in the unequivocal testi- 
mony of Rev. Theodore Parker, which, though pub- 
lished before, will be quoted here. for the information 
of any who have not seen it, and who might, for some 
reasons, be interested in it. In a note to the writer, 
kindly replying to an inquiry, he says (Dec. 1, 1858 — 
the italics are his): | 

“To me wt ts quite clear that Jesus taught the doctrine 
of eternal damnation, if the Evangelists —the first three 
I mean — are to be treated as inspired. I can under- 
stand his language in no other way. But as the Prot- 
estant sects start with the notion — which to me is 
a monstrous one —that the words of the New Testa- 
ment are all miraculously inspired of God, and so infal- 
libly true; and as the doctrine of eternal damnation is 
so revolting to all the humane and moral feelings of our 
nature, men said the words must be interpreted in 
another way. So as the Unitarians have misinter- 
preted the New Testament to prove that the Christos 
of the fourth Gospel had no preéxistence, the Univer- 
salists misinterpreted passages of the Gospels to show 
that Jesus of Nazareth never taught eternal damnation. 
So the geologists misinterpret Genesis to-day — to save 
the infallible character of the text.” 


An expedient to remove the insupportable burden 


RETRIBUTION. 403 


with which the doctrine of endless retribution frequently 
weighs upon the human heart, has been revived of late 
in the theory of the ‘ Annihilation of the Wicked.’ 

One great error of interpretation lies at the founda- 
tion of that theory, and extends its influence into all 
the reasoning of its advocates. They say that, in the 
Bible, ‘life’? is everywhere declared to be the inherit- 
ance of the good, alone; while “death” is, with the 
same uniformity, pronounced to be the fate of the wicked. 
‘“‘ Life” and “death”? they hold to mean, respectively, 
existence, and non-existence. Grant them this, and 
their conclusions are plausible. 

But in the Scriptures, “life,” as a promise to the 
good, does not mean eaistence, but that which makes 
existence a blessmg. Nor does ‘death,’ as a threat- 
ening, mean the loss of being, but of that which makes 
it desirable to exist. Hence when it is said, ‘* To them 
who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek for 
glory, honor, and immortality, eternal life,’ we hold 
the meaning to be, that their existence shall find its 
great design in perfect, endless felicity ; and when it is 
said, ‘“* The wages of sin is death,’’ the meaning is, exist- 
ence shall be a perpetual loss of every thing which 
makes it good to live, the soul surviving to endure this 
loss and to feel its bitter consequences, forever. The 
advocate of annihilation denies this, and insists upon 
the mere literal, popular meaning of the words ‘“ life” 
and ‘* death.” 


We must insist, in turn, that the extent of meaning, 


404 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


in the two cases, be made the same; but this would at 
once destroy the theory of annihilation, by making the 
happiness of the blessed to consist only in bare existence, 
which is unscriptural and absurd. For, does ‘ death” 
mean ceasing to be, and that only? Then “life” means 


continuing to be, and that only. Who will assert this ? 


Existence of itself is not a blessing. But is this all that. 


the glowing language of the Bible, with its accumula- 
tion of metaphors, means, when it promises ‘“ eternal 
life”? to the good? It surely must be interpreted so as 
to mean nothing but existence, if the second “ death ” 
means only non-existence. 

What does Christ mean when he says, ‘* A man’s life 
consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he 
possesses”? ? Not existence, surely, but that which makes 
existence happy. ‘It is for thy life,” says the wise 
man with regard to instruction. ‘The way of life,” 
“the fountain of life,’ ‘“findeth life,” “wisdom giveth 
life,” and many such passages, do not mean bare exist- 
ence; no one supposes this to be their signification. 
The word Zoe (life), among the Greeks, was synony- 
mous with possessions, one’s entire sources of prosperity 
and enjoyment. ‘The hearers of Christ did not need to 
be told that a man’s existence (Zoe) consisteth not in 
the abundance of the things which he possesseth; but 
they, like others, were prone to feel that the end of life 
is to be rich, and they needed admonition. 

The way in which immortality is referred to in the 


Scriptures will illustrate our position. It is represented 


RETRIBUTION. 405 


as something which we do not yet possess; for the good 
are said to “seek for immortality.” And besides, it is 
not liwing forever which Christians now seek for. But 
they possess immortality now, if ever; hence the ‘“ im- 
mortality,’’ in this passage, does not signify merely 
continued existence. Notice the antithesis to ‘‘immor- 
tality’ in this verse: — ‘indignation and wrath, tribu- 
lation and anguish.’? Mere existence, then, is not the 
main idea in this promised immortality. 

The Greek word immortality (aphtharsia) is some- 
times, and in other connections, rendered sincerity, incor- 
ruption, — which gives us a fine idea of the inherent 
beauty and power of the word when applied to the 
future existence of the good, and it wonderfully con- 
firms the position that, in the Bible, existence in itself 
is not regarded as the primary blessing, but the moral 
state which makes it a good thing. 

In the lecture on the ‘ Intermediate State’ it was 
observed that Dr. Priestley declared materialism and 
Socinianism to be inseparable. Great use is made of 
the signification which believers in annihilation give to 
death in the Bible, to destroy the doctrine of our Sav- 
iour’s Godhead. For if when Christ died, He became 
unconscious, and remained so while in the tomb, there 
could be no divine nature in his person, else, they say, 
He could not have died. The inference is plain. All 
annihilationists are not Socinians; but their theory 
would lead them, logically, to Socinianism. 


It is interesting to notice how the Scriptures strictly 


406 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


observe the rule of describing things according to ap- 
pearance, and in the use of popular language, even in 
speaking of the righteous and the wicked. By this 
mode of expression, it has already been observed, the 
language of the Scriptures never conflicts with discov- 
erles in astronomy and geology; but the advocates of 
annihilation, forgetting this law of language, make great 
use of certain declarations respecting the wicked. One 
illustration will suffice: ‘* Yet a little while and the 
wicked shall not be.” This is triumphantly used to 
prove that the wicked are annihilated when they 
die. But similar expressions are used concerning the 
good: ‘And Enoch walked with God, and he was not, 
for God took him.” More exactly corresponding to the 
expression first quoted, we hear even Job say: ‘* Thou 
shalt seek me in the morning, and I shall not be.” 

It will not be necessary, nor is there room here, to 
follow the annihilationist in all his extremely literal 
interpretations of words and phrases relating to life, 
death, and a future state. The foregoing exposition of 
the principles on which he interprets the word of God 
is sufficient. He tells us, in reply to our correction of 
his error, as we consider it, that the Bible is unintelli- 
gible to the common people on the theory of interpreta- 
tion which we hold. We reply that the Bible follows 
the ordinary laws of human speech, in every land and 
tongue ; but if men interpreted the language of ordinary 
life as the annihilationist renders the Bible, conversa- 


tion would soon beconre a Babel, and human affairs 


RETRIBUTION. 407 


would be hopelessly perplexed. Take the two words 
which we have now considered, as used with reference 
to this world. We speak of the ‘pious dead,’ ‘the 
sainted dead.’ Do we mean, The unconscious? When 
a community is said to be “ dead,”’ or when active Chris- 
tians are said to be “alive,” common people know that 
death and life are symbols of certain conditions. So in 
the Bible. 

In arguing with the annihilationist, we do not gain 
much by insisting on the indestructibleness of the soul. 
For surely God can destroy that which His hands have 
made. The proofs of endless retribution are better drawn 
from other sources. Unanswerable proofs of the exist- 
ence of spiritual beings, are far better than all the ar- 
guments against materialism. 

The use which the advocate of annihilation makes 
of the prominence given in the Scriptures to the res- 
urrection, as the date of perfected reward and punish- 
ment, has been noticed in the previous lecture, when 
replying to Bishop Horsley’s arguments. The inter- 
mediate state, let us never forget, much less deny, is a 
state of expectation, and, compared with the scenes and 
experiences of the last day, no doubt it is such that 
to speak of that last day as a waking from sleep, 
coming to life, and other bold metaphors, are surely as 
correct as it is for a man who has been recovered from a 
mistake, or who meets with a wonderful discovery, to say 
that he ‘awoke from a dream,’ that he was ‘in a new 


world.’ Without dwelling or this point, already dis- 


408 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


cussed, we pass to another line of argument against 
the doctrine of annihilation. 

An effective consideration against this doctrine of 
annihilation is, that it is utterly inconsistent with the 
sublime plan which is evidently implied in the atone- 
ment. That scheme implies the great principle of 
human accountability ; it appears to be made for the 
twofold purpose of maintaining the interests of law, 
and as the greatest possible motive to influence the 
human will. The atonement consists in the most stu- 
pendous acts of which the divine nature is capable, 
namely, The union of the Divine Word with the 
body and soul of the Redeemer, in connection with the 
accursed death of the cross. ‘The impression thus made 
is, that the peril of man is infinite, the price at which 
he is to be redeemed, infinite; and the consequences 
infinite, if the atonement be refused. God was willing 
to offer up his only begotten and well-beloved Son; it 
was a sacrifice, in every sense; it was equivalent to the 
penalty incurred by all men, else it was not an adequate 
atonement. ‘This, God has done to save men; and now, 
if upon their rejection of his efforts in their behalf, He 
feels compelled to blot them out of existence, — He 
abandons the great principle of human _ responsibility, 
which it cost so much to vindicate, and He substitutes for 
it the extinction of being. ‘This is a confession of weak- 
ness; the great plan is not carried out; it began with 
infinite majesty, deriving its greatness very much from 


the principle of human: responsibility which it main- 


RETRIBUTION. 409 


tained, inasmuch as it declared that no sinner should be 
saved except through his acceptance of the atonement 
made by his incarnate God. We need something 
at the end of the scheme to balance the amazing great- 
ness of its beginning. To put persons out of existence 
is not correlative to the Son of God becoming incarnate 
and dying for them. As much as the human mind 
dreads the idea of endless misery, let it be considered 
whether the atonement does not seem to make it neces- 
sary, so that the consequences of rejecting it may readily 
be seen to be as great as the effort to save. <A disbe- 
liever in the atonement, we can conceive, may more 
readily believe in annihilation; one who has unworthy 
views of the principle of human responsibility, resolving 
all into divine efficiency, may not find it difficult to believe 
that God will blot out the wicked from existence; but, 
in view of the atonement by our incarnate God, no 
one can believe that the incorrigibly wicked will be 
annihilated without seeming to admit that the stupen- 
dous scheme, in the first place,» was disproportionate, 
and, in the second place, that as to its rejectors it 
came to nothing. There must be an endless death to 
correspond with the endless life, as the issue of the 
mighty plan, or He who was able to suffer for the 
wicked acknowledges himself unable to meet the nat- 
ural consequences of their rejecting Him. We are not 
to believe this. He who died for men does not ask 
relief of his creatures through any scheme which annihi- 


lates those whom He cannot see enduring the perpetual 
35 


410 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


consequences, plainly set before them here, of rejecting 
infinite condescension and love in their behalf. If 
Christ. died for the ungodly, we cannot suppose that 
they will be suffered to die for themselves. For in 
that case there would appear to be another way besides 
the death of Christ in which they could be redeemed 
from endless misery, that is to say, by putting them 
forever out of its reach. Thus the atonement is the 
corner-stone of the divine administration. It makes 
endless punishment a necessary part of the divine plan ; 
and, in its turn, endless punishment looks to the atone- 
ment as its great counterpart, it is the obverse side, in 
the moral system. 

The same principle in men which leads them to believe 
and advocate annihilation as a relief of the divine char- 
acter from imputations of cruelty, leads others to teach 
that future punishment will consist merely in the natu- 
ral consequences of evil doing, without any positive 
infliction from the hand of God. They would not 
admit, however, that future happiness is merely the 
consequences of well doing; they agree that God _ will 
bestow upon the righteous positive acts of goodness, mak-. 
ing them drink of ‘the river of his pleasures.’’ But the 
passages which confirm this view, and those which rep- 
resent God as punishing the wicked hereafter, are to be 
interpreted by the same rule; it is only as the human 
heart melts with terror at the thought of God as a pun- 
isher, that objections are made in the one case which 


never occur in the other. Sin is not its own punish- 


* 


RETRIBUTION. AL 


ment. It is not so in this world. Men can become so 
brutish that if God will but depart from them, He may 
leave them to the society of one another, however wicked, 
and they will so adjust themselves to their condition 
that, in time, they can endure every discomfort, and 
every form of misery. 

If there be no other form in which positive punish- 
ments will be inflicted on the wicked, we may infer from 
the last dread sentence, which consigns them to the 
society of the devil and his angels, and from the power 
of evil spirits over men in the time of Christ, that this 
source of positive suffering will be experienced in addi- 
tion to the natural consequences of sm. When we read 
of seven devils in possession of one human victim, we 
gather that there is malignant pleasure in their making 
a victim intensely wretched. The poor creature among 
the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way, 
may be an illustration, designed in infinite mercy, to 
show us what it is to be the subjects of the devil. His 
minions, once on thrones in heaven, begged that they 
might enter into the swine. But not to dwell on this, — 
let every one who declares it to be too fearful for belief, 
remember that no one is compelled to endure it. ‘+ God 
hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that 
whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with 
him.”’ 

It is impossible, in the nature of things, for man to be. 


more capable of appreciating arguments and moral obli- 


412 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


gations, and of shunning risks and securing happiness, 
than he is in this world. He does not need here to be 
cast into prison in order to keep the laws; and those 
who do suffer this penalty are not elevated by it to any 
superior discernment or to any higher tone of character. 
If only brutish people were in danger of future misery, 
the argument in favor of disciplinary influence hereafter 
would be more plausible; but if it be the educated, the © 
polished, the leaders of society, as well as others who, if 
they believe not, shall perish, we may insist that never 
can they more fully discern or feel the obligations of 
religion than in this world. 

It is not to be supposed that the character of God as 
a punisher will make the wicked any more favorably 
disposed toward Him than they are in this present life. 
Here the influences of reconciliation, represented by all 
that gives a charm to human life, are suited to subdue 
the heart, and here the character of God, just, and hating 
sin, is blended with manifestations of infinite love; but 
if his character, thus presented, fails to subdue and 
secure the heart, it is unphilosophical to suppose that the 
execution of the last dread sentence will dispose men to 
love God. For Christ is the power of God and the 
wisdom of God unto salvation; it is Christ,—not the 
infliction of the second death. 

Some, to vindicate the character of God from the 
imputation of cruelty, or his government of this world 
from the charge of being a failure, maintain, in a some- 


what apologetic manner, that the number of the lost 


RETRIBUTION. 4138 


cannot possibly be so great as the number of the re- 
deemed, and they think, by placing the future punish- 
ment of the wicked within sight of the overwhelming 
multitudes of the redeemed, to abate the force of objec- 
tions against it. 

Even if the number of the redeemed is to be as great 
as they claim,—and no human heart can fail to hope, 
nor can the most rational calculations fail to excite the 
belief, that the comparative number of the redeemed 
will be exceedingly great,—the numbers who must 
already have perished by the judgments of God are too 
great to be sunk into insignificance by any contrasted 
numbers of the redeemed; nor can the everlasting 
misery of* such a number be less a reflection upon the 
goodness and justice of God, if one will so regard it, 
however many there may be who shall be saved. 

We must admit that there are depths in the govern- 
ment of God which we cannot fathom. Surely, there 
would seem to be enough in the existence of sin and its 
consequences in this world, to prevent arrogant judgments 
with regard to things which lie beyond the boundaries 
of time. The supposition that the present course of 
things will be wholly reversed, instead of. being car- 
ried forward to an issue corresponding to the first part 
of the plan, that the universe-is one day to be utterly 
free from sin and misery, is without foundation, except 
in the fancies of men. They insist that the endless 
continuance of sin and misery is a reflection upon the 
power, or wisdom, or goodness, of God, perhaps upon all 


414 EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES. 


of them together. ‘* But who hath known the mind 
of the Lord, or, being his counsellor, hath taught Him?” 
It is as capable of proof as the contrary that the illus- 
trations of the character of God, and of the nature, and 
effects, and final consequences, of sin, derived from the 
endless misery of reprobate transgressors, will tend to 
the infinite happiness of worlds and systems without ~ 
number, and that, under a government administered 
through motives and not by force, it may be the wisest 
and most benevolent plan to let all creation see, in the 
chosen portion of the wicked forever, what holiness is, 
and its great rewards, and what sin is, and its conse- 
quences. 


But we pause with this subject, and at this point, 
where we look off into darkness, across which no light 
from reason or from revelation throws its beams. The 
Bible leaves the unjust, unjust still, and the righteous, 
righteous still. In doing this, however, “the Spirit and 
the bride say, Come.” 


Leaving these great themes here, let the reader 
find thoughts congenial with his own in these words 
of Bernard Barton’s ** Christmas Carol,” which also ex- 
press the plan and aim of the writer in the foregoing 
presentations of divine truth: 


RETRIBUTION. 415 


* Not in subtle speculation, 
Not in codes and creeds of men, 
Not in learned disputation 
On thy Gospel’s hidden plan; 


‘ Not in reason’s proud researches, 
Fixing thesis, date, or term, 
Not in quoting synods, churches, 
Dwells religion’s vital germ. 


‘Thou who diedst for man’s transgression, 
Thou who reignest now above, 
Still art heard in intercession, 
Still art known by acts of Love; — 


“ Fain would I, with reverent feeling, 
Owe my hopes to Thee alone, 
To thy Sacrifice appealing 
Cast each crown before thy Throne. 


“ Trusting human strength no longer, 
Henceforth be that weakness mine 
Which attempts not to be stronger 
In itself, but power divine ; — 


«“ Which seeks not from depths of science, 
Heights of knowledge, aid to draw; 
But in humble, meek reliance 
On thy Love, would keep thy law.” 


THE END. 





4 
i 
= 5 s : ’ - 
‘ - 
. ~ 
os ‘ ‘ ™ ‘ - . , . 
‘ : 
‘ : . 7 és 
« . 
> . 
‘ A 
ow 
_ . . We ‘ 
‘ 
. 5 ’ ~~ ~ 
. v 7 - 7 
. . : aa) 7 
' 
' : , ‘ 
= - 2 
: 
‘ ~ a 7 
, - me 
a 
“ ‘ 
y ‘ 
’ be 7 a 
’ 
4 2 : 
34 3 P 
, na 
. 
; = 
s 
° * 
. 


COULD AND LINCOLN, 


59 WASHINGTON STREET, BOSTON, 


Would call particular attention to the following valuable works described 
in their Catalogue of Publications, viz. : 


Hugh Miller’s Works. 
Bayne’s Works. Walker’s Works. Miall’s Works. SBungener’s Work. 


Annnal of Scientific Discovery. Knight’s Knowledge is Power. be 
Krummacher’s Suffering Saviour, 
Banvard’s American Histories. The Aimwell Stories. S 


Newcomb’s Works. Tweedie’s Works. Chambers’s Works. Harris’ Works? 
Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature. 
Mrs. Knight’s Life of Montgomery. Kitto’s History of Palestine. 
Whewell’s Work. Wayland’s Works. Agassiz’s Works. 











































| M0 i A a ; 
S® eS 
= ee of Rocks << pas AG i 
_—S AN\\ Ann. of Scient. Dj : er. \ \ i 
Se! Barth and Man, “°¥” \\ David A. Weng, \ | 
—=- ~ MAW Principles of Zoolo, Arnold Guyot, \A ) 
S 0 ’ u 


if 


“i 


S\ Comparative Anatom 
=~ S AY Mollusca and Shells, » 
S AY Thesaur- of Eng. Wor, as 
=S—= SS SS \\ Knowledge is Power, ’ \ 
=F SS SAME Cyclon. of Eng. Litera. ,' 
S \\ Cyclop. of Bible Lit., 
Concord. of the Bible, 
Analyt. Cone. of Bible, 



























ert Chambers, 
itto, — Cruden, 

ie. — Williama, 
Francis Wayland, 
John Harris, 




























































































DSISIAA TASES 





Williams’ Works. Guyot’s Works. 

Thompson’s Better Land. Kimball’s Heaven. Valuable Works on Missions 
Haven’s Mental Philosophy. Buchanan’s Modern Atheism. 
Cruden’s Condensed Concordance. Eadie’s Analytical Concordancea 
The Psalmist: a Collection of Hymns. 

Valuable School Books. Works for Sabbath Schools. 

Memoir of Amos Lawrence. 

Poetical Works of Milton, Cowper, Scott. Elegant Miniature Volumes. 
Arvine’s Cyclopedia of Anecdotes. 

Ripley’s Notes on Gospels, Acts, and Romans. 

Sprague’s European Celebrities. Marsh’s Camel and the Hallig. 
Roget’s Thesaurus of English Words, 

Hackett’s Notes on Acts. M’Whorter’s Yahveh Christ. 

Siebold and Stannius’s Comparative Anatomy. Marcou’s Geological Map, U.S, 
Religious and Miscellaneous Works. 

Works in the various Departments of Literature, Science and Art. 


Gould and Hincoln’s Publications, 


(SCIENTIFIC.) 





ANNUAL OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, 11 vols., from 1850—1860, 
By D. A. WELLS, A.M. With Portraits of distinguished men. 12mo. 


THE PLURALITY OF WORLDS; a new edition, with the author’s re- 
views Of his reviewers. 12mo. 


COMPARATIVE ANATOMY OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. By 
Profs. SIEBOLD and STANNIUS. Translated by W. I. BURNETT, M. D. 8yo. 


HUGH MILLER’S WORKS. Testimony OF THE ROCKS. With Illus- 
trations. 12mo, cloth. 


FOOTPRINTS OF THE CREATOR. With Il- 
lustrations. Memoir by Louis A@Assiz. 12mo, cloth. 


THE OLD RED SANDSTONE. With Illus- 





trations, etc. 12mo, cloth. 


My SCHOOLS AND SCHOOLMASTERS. An 
Autobiography. Full-length Portrait of Author. 12mo, cloth. 


FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF ENGLAND AND ITS 
PEOPLE. With fine Portrait. 12mo, cloth. 





CRUISE OF THE BETSEY. A Ramble among 
the Fossiliferous Deposits of the Hebrides. 12mo, cloth. 


POPULAR GEOLOGY, 12mo, cloth. 
HUGH MILLER’S WORKS, 7 vols., embossed cloth, with box. 


UNITED STATES EXPLORING EXPEDITION, wnder CHARLES 
WiLkes. Vol. XII., Mollusca and Shells. By A. A. GouLD, M. D. 4to. 


LAKE SUPERIOR. Its Physical Character, Vegetation, and Animals. By 
L. AGASSIZ. 8vo. 


THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. By C. 
“HAMILTON SMITH. With Elegant Illustrations. With Introduction, con- 
taining an abstract of the views of eminent writers on the subject, by S. 
KNEELAND, M.D. 12mo. 


THE CAMEL. His organization, habits, and uses, with reference to his intro: 
duction into the United States. By GzrorGze P.Marsu. 12mo. 


INFLUENCE OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE UPON INTEL- 
LECTUAL EDUCATION. By W. WHEWELL,D.D. 12mo. 


SPIRITUALISM TESTED; or, the Facts of its History Classified, and tieir 
causes in Nature verified from Ancient and Modern Testimonies. By Gxo. 
W. Samson, D. D. 16mo, cloth. 


(5) 


Gould and Lincoln's Publications. 


(EDUCATIONAL.) 





LECTURES ON METAPHYSICS. By Str Wrtt1aAmM HAMILTON. With 
Notes from original materials. 8vo, cloth. 


LECTURES ON LOGIC. By Str Wiz11am Hamitton. With an Appen- 
dix, containing the author’s latest development of his new Logical theory. 
8vo, cloth. 


ELEMENTS OF MORAL SCIENCE. By Francis WAYLAND, D. D., late 
President of Brown University. 12mo, cloth. 


THE SAME, Abridged for Schools and Academies, half morocco. 


ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. By FRANcIS WAYLAND, 
D. D. 12mo, cloth. 


THE SAME, Abridged for Schools and Academies, half morocco. 


MENTAL PHILOSOPHY; including the Intellect, the Sensibilities, and the 
Will. By Jos—EPpH HAveEN, D. D. 12mo, cloth. 


MORAL PHILOSOPHY; including Theoretical and Practical Ethics. By 
JOSEPH HAVEN, D. D. 12m, cloth. 


THE EARTH AND MAN; Lectures on Comparative Physical Geography 
in its relation to the History of Mankind. By ARNOLD Guyot. 12mo, 
cloth. 


THE ELEMENTS OF GEOLOGY; adapted to Schools and Colleges. 
With numerous Illustrations. By J. R. Loomis, President of Lewisburg 
University. 12mo, cloth. 


PRINCIPLES OF ZOOLOGY; for the use of Schools and Colleges. With 
numerous Illustrations. By Louis AGaAssiz and AuGusTUs A. GOULD, 
M.D. 12mo, cloth. 


PALEY’S NATURAL THEOLOGY, Illustrated by forty Plates. Edited 
by JoHN WARE, M. D. 12mo, cloth. 


GUYOT’S MURAL MAPS; A series of elegant colored maps, exhibiting the 
Physical Phenomena of the Globe. 


MAP OF THE WORLD, mounted. 

MAP OF NORTH AMERICA, mounted. 

MAP OF SOUTH AMERICA, mounted. 

MAP OF GEOGRAPHICAL ELEMENTS, mounted. 


GEOLOGICAL MAP OF THE UNITED STATES AND BRITISH 
PROVINCES; with Geological Sections and Fossil Plates. By JULES 


Marcovu. 2 vols., 8vo, cloth. 
(43) 


Gould and Lincoln's Publications. 
(RELIGIOVS.) 


- 


GOTTHOLD’S EMBLEMS ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things that 
are Made. By CHRISTIAN SoORIVER. Tr. from the 28th German Ed. by 
Rey. RoBeRT MENZIES. 8vo, cloth, Fine Edition, Tinted Paper, 
royal 8yo, cloth. 


THE STILL HOUR; or, Communion with God. By Prof. AusTIN PHELPS, 
D. D., of Andover Theological Seminary. 16mo, cloth. 


LESSONS AT THE CROSS; or, Spiritual Truths Familiarly Exhibited in 
their Relations to Christ. By SAMUEL HopxKins, author of ‘‘ The Puritans,” 
etc. Introduction by GEORGE W. BLAGDEN, D. D. 16mo, cloth. 


NEW ENGLAND THEOCRACY. From the German of Uhden’s History 
of the Congregationalists of New England. Introduction by NEANDER. 
By Mrs. H.C. Conant. 12mo, cloth. 


EVENINGS WITH THE DOCTRINES, oy Rey. NEHEMIAH ADAMS, 
D. D. 12mo, cloth. 


THE STATE OF THE IMPENITENT DEAD, By AtvauH Hovey, 
D. D., Prof. of Christian Theology in Newton Theol. Inst. 16mo, cloth. 


FOOTSTEPS OF OUR FOREFATHERS; what they Suffered and what 
they Sought. Describing Localities, Personages, and Events, in the Struggles 
for Religious Liberty. By JAMES G. M1aLu. Illustrations. 12mo, cloth. 


MEMORIALS OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY. . Presenting, in a graphic 
form, Memorable Events of Early Ecclesiastical History, etc. By Rey. J. 
G. MIALL. With Illustrations. 12mo, cloth. 


THE MISSIONARY ENTERPRISE. The most important Discourses in 
the language on Christian Missions, by distinguished American Authors. 
Edited by BARon Stow, D. D. 12mo, cloth. 


THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD, and their Relations to Christianity. 
By FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE, Prof..of Divinity in King’s Coll., Lon- 
don. 16mo, cloth. 


THE CHRISTIAN WORLD UNMASKED. By Joun Brerrinves, A. M., 
Vicar of Everton, Bedfordshire. With a Life of the Author, by Rey. 
THOMAS GUTHRIE, D. D. 16mo, cloth. 


THE EXCELLENT WOMAN, as described in the Book of Proverbs. With 


an Introduction by W. B. SPRAGUE, D. D. Twenty-four splendid Ilustra- 
tions. 12mo, cloth. 


MOTHERS OF THE WISE AND GOOD, By Janez Burns, D. D. 16mo, 
cloth. 


THE SIGNET-RING, and its Heavenly Motto. From the German. Ilus- 
trated. 16mo, cloth, gilt. 


THE MARRIAGE-RING; or, How to Make Home Happy. From the writ- 
ings Of JOHN ANGELL JAMES. Beautifully Llustrated edition. 16mo, 
cloth, gilt. 

(52) 


Hert , 


Eh 

















teen 


Leavid toast 












so eyes 
teams 












sige ticislsatriett te oontone 


7 


f 
Byte bation aalict 






Brsas so. Sh hla rhe spit des mes len. panne ese iSsSgramaebalt bp Balin fare bse tines tow SO 


Alege 























3 nannee 


| 


seminary 

















° 

S 

——————— ~« 
.—— - = * : 
—— tated . bee : 

g opebirmentiha tes). © ee 
E : 

a 


an ee 2 
OS EE ee 
SF tat Sales 


BS ir, 
Tage d, 


es 


$ext 


ras SAP 
Sastre 


es 


